From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jay Vosburgh Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] bonding: use common mac addr checks Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 14:29:16 -0700 Message-ID: <5809.1526074156@famine> References: <20180511192548.8119-1-dbanerje@akamai.com> <20180511192548.8119-3-dbanerje@akamai.com> <4921.1526072038@famine> <9b51c882f54244e5972da43d7955c959@usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: "David S . Miller" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Veaceslav Falico , "Andy Gospodarek" To: "Banerjee, Debabrata" Return-path: Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:50223 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750972AbeEKV3W (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2018 17:29:22 -0400 In-reply-to: <9b51c882f54244e5972da43d7955c959@usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com> Content-ID: <5808.1526074156.1@famine> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Banerjee, Debabrata wrote: >> From: Jay Vosburgh [mailto:jay.vosburgh@canonical.com] >> Debabrata Banerjee wrote: > >> >- if >> (!ether_addr_equal_64bits(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst, >> >- mac_bcast) && >> >- >> !is_zero_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) { >> >+ if >> (is_valid_ether_addr(rx_hash_table[index].mac_dst)) { >> >> This change and the similar ones below will now fail non-broadcast >> multicast Ethernet addresses, where the prior code would not. Is this an >> intentional change? > >Yes I don't see how it makes sense to use multicast addresses at all, but I may be missing something. It's also illegal according to rfc1812 3.3.2, but obviously this balancing mode is trying to be very clever. We probably shouldn't violate the rfc anyway. Fair enough, but I think it would be good to call this out in the change log just in case it does somehow cause a regression. -J --- -Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@canonical.com