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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZDbVgqV9JT7Ru96j@shredder> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:00:02 +0300 From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com> To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Hans J. Schultz" <netdev@...io-technology.com>, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>, Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@...lanox.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bridge: switchdev: don't notify FDB entries with "master dynamic" On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 05:27:33PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > How are extern_learn FDB entries processed by spectrum's > SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE handler? No different than "BR_FDB_STATIC", which is a bug I'm aware of and intend to fix in net-next when I get the time (together with all the other combinations enabled by the bridge). Entry has ageing disabled, but can roam in which case it becomes age-able. TBH, I think most devices don't handle "BR_FDB_STATIC" correctly. In the Linux bridge, "BR_FDB_STATIC" only means ageing disabled. The entry can still roam, but remains "static". I believe that in most devices out there "static" means no roaming and no ageing which is equivalent to "BR_FDB_STATIC | BR_FDB_STICKY". Mentioned in your commit message as well: "As for the hardware FDB entry, that's static, it doesn't move when the station roams." As it stands, the situation is far from perfect, but the patch doesn't solve a regression (always broken) and will introduce one. My suggestion allows you to move forward and solve the "dynamic" case, so let's proceed with that unless there's a better alternative.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists