netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] bridge: Redirect to backup port when port is administratively down

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: <20250813172017.767ad396@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2025 17:20:17 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
 <davem@...emloft.net>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 <razor@...ckwall.org>, <petrm@...dia.com>, <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] bridge: Redirect to backup port when port
 is administratively down

On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 11:02:12 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote:
>  	/* redirect to backup link if the destination port is down */
> -	if (rcu_access_pointer(to->backup_port) && !netif_carrier_ok(to->dev)) {
> +	if (rcu_access_pointer(to->backup_port) &&
> +	    (!netif_carrier_ok(to->dev) || !netif_running(to->dev))) {

Not really blocking this patch, but I always wondered why we allow
devices with carrier on in admin down state. Is his just something we
have because updating 200 drivers which don't manage carrier today
would be a PITA? Or there's a stronger reason to allow this?
Hopefully I'm not misreading the patch..