[Bridge] Re: ebtables target to disable an interface
Eble, Dan
DanE at aiinet.com
Mon Aug 11 05:22:49 PDT 2003
Thanks for the advice. Still, I would like to avoid using the log to
communicate between the driver and a process. What do you think of using a
netlink socket to send a message from the bridge driver? (Once it works, it
could be used for spanning tree control too, as DaveM suggested a while back
for an alternative to ioctl).
The only problem is I'm not very familiar with netlink sockets. From what I
have heard here, though, it sounds like I have a better chance to make a
netlink socket work properly than to shut down the port from inside the
kernel without causing a panic, deadlock, or memory leak.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart De Schuymer [mailto:bdschuym at pandora.be]
> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:08 AM
> To: Eble, Dan; bridge at osdl.org
> Subject: Re: [Bridge] Re: ebtables target to disable an interface
>
>
> On Friday 08 August 2003 15:23, Eble, Dan wrote:
> > Thanks for the suggestion, but it's not the best fit for
> the system I'm
> > working in. (Carrying the reasoning further, I could have
> the kernel log
> > *everything* it does and...)
> >
> > Is there a problem with bringing down the interface from inside?
>
> I don't know the details by heart, but the code to bring a
> bridge port down
> probably expects being called from user context, not from
> within softirq.
> That code can probably sleep, which is not allowed inside softirq.
> Problems with removing ports that are the in-port or out-port
> of currently
> processed frames will show up too.
>
> cheers,
> Bart
>
More information about the Bridge
mailing list