netdev - Re: [PATCH] net br_netlink.c:y allow non "disabled" state for !netif_oper

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y2vkwYyivfTqAfEp@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2022 18:34:57 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>,
        Flavio Leitner <fbl@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net br_netlink.c:y allow non "disabled" state for
 !netif_oper_up() links

On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 04:24:10PM +0100, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> A generic loop-free network protocol (such as STP or MRP and others) may
> require that a link not in an operational state be into a non "disabled"
> state (such as listening).
> 
> For example MRP states that a MRM should set into a "BLOCKED" state (which is
> equivalent to the LISTENING state for Linux bridges) one of its ring
> connection if it detects that this connection is "DOWN" (that is the
> NO-CARRIER status).

Does MRP explain Why?

This change seems odd, and "Because the standard says so" is not the
best of explanations.

     Andrew