linux-kernel - Re: B53 DSA switch problem on Banana Pi-R1 on Fedora 26

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]

Date:   Wed, 23 May 2018 19:35:33 +0200
From:   Gerhard Wiesinger <lists@...singer.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: B53 DSA switch problem on Banana Pi-R1 on Fedora 26

On 23.05.2018 17:28, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>> And in the future (time plan)?
> If you don't care about multicast then you can use those patches:
>
> https://github.com/ffainelli/linux/commit/de055bf5f34e9806463ab2793e0852f5dfc380df
>
> and you have to change the part of drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c that
> returns DSA_TAG_PROTO_NONE for 53125:
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> index 9f561fe505cb..3c64f026a8ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
> @@ -1557,7 +1557,7 @@ enum dsa_tag_protocol b53_get_tag_protocol(struct
> dsa_switch *ds, int port)
>           * mode to be turned on which means we need to specifically
> manage ARL
>           * misses on multicast addresses (TBD).
>           */
> -       if (is5325(dev) || is5365(dev) || is539x(dev) || is531x5(dev) ||
> +       if (is5325(dev) || is5365(dev) || is539x(dev) ||
>              !b53_can_enable_brcm_tags(ds, port))
>                  return DSA_TAG_PROTO_NONE;
>
>
> That would bring Broadcom tags to the 53125 switch and you would be able
> to use the configuration lines from Andrew in that case.

What's the plan here regarding these 2 config option mode (how do you 
call them?)?

I mean, will this be a breaking change in the future where config has to 
be done in a different way then?

Or will it be configurable via module parameters or /proc or /sys 
filesystem options?


Thank you.

Ciao,

Gerhard