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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20250814174810.4a5b2c9a@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:48:10 -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 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:28:58 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 05:20:17PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > 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..  
> 
> Probably the first reason.

Thanks, let me add clearing carrier to our list of potential cleanup
projects.