netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/10] MC Flood disable and snooping

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: <4511d7cc-d7c0-4095-8a37-b2eefffb0ca2@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 15:09:46 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Joseph Huang <joseph.huang.2024@...il.com>
Cc: Joseph Huang <Joseph.Huang@...min.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
	Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
	Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/10] MC Flood disable and snooping

> > Thanks for the explanation. So i think the key part which you said
> > above is:
> > 
> >    At the same time, the bridge will also forward the packet to every
> >    mrouter port so that listeners beyond mrouter ports can receive that
> >    multicast packet as well.
> > 
> > How does the bridge know about the mrouter port? It seems like the
> 
> The bridge learns about the existence of the Querier by the reception of
> Queries. The bridge will mark the port which it received Queries from as the
> mrouter port.
> 
> > bridge needs to pass that information down to the switch. Is the
> 
> The bridge does pass that information down to switchdev. Patch 5 adds DSA
> handling of that event as well. Patches 9 and 10 adds the support in the
> mv88e6xxx driver.

I've not been looking at the details too much for this patchset. It
does however seem that some parts are controversial, and others just
seem like a bug fix. Does it make sense to split this into two
patchsets?

	Andrew