netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/10] bridge: Allow keeping local FDB entries only on VLAN 0

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: <aOEe3XKr25GNGZpr@sellars>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2025 15:19:25 +0200
From: Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, bridge@...ts.linux.dev,
	mlxsw@...dia.com, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/10] bridge: Allow keeping local FDB entries
 only on VLAN 0

On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 12:07:43PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> My 2c, it is ok to special case vlan 0 as it is illegal to use, so it can be used
> to match on "special" entries like this.

I'm probably missing some context, but why would VLAN 0 be illegal
to use? Isn't VLAN 0 used for untagged frames with priorities? A
priority tagged frame?

Regards, Linus