On Sat, 2024-11-09 at 15:40 +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote: > No way, this is ridiculous. Changing the port like that for a notification is > not > ok at all. It is also not the bridge's job to notify user-space for sticky > fdbs > that are trying to roam, you already have some user-space app and you can > catch > such fdbs by other means (sniffing, ebpf hooks, netfilter matching etc). Such > change can also lead to DDoS attacks with many notifications.
Unfortunately in this case the only indication we get from the hardware of this event happening is a switchdev notification to the bridge. All traffic is dropped in hardware when the port is in this mode so the methods you suggest will not work. I have changed my implementation to use Andrew's suggestion of using a new attribute rather than messing with the port. But would this also be more appropriate if the notification was only triggered when receiving the event from hardware? If not then do you have any suggestions for getting these kinds of events from hardware to userspace without going through the bridge?
