netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 00/12] Add basic VLAN support to bridges

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:00:40 +0200
From:	Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@...il.com>
To:	vyasevic@...hat.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com, davem@...emloft.net,
	or.gerlitz@...il.com, jhs@...atatu.com, mst@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/12] Add basic VLAN support to bridges

Hi Vlad,

On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:03:36 -0500 Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com> wrote:
> > The port's PVID uniquely determines VID to associate with the frame
> > during _ingress_ on that port - in the case frame arrived untagged.
> >
> > This is unrelated to whether a frame having a specific VID would _egress_
> > tagged or untagged on that port.
> 
> Ahh...  I see what you mean.  You would like to separate
> ingress policy and egress policy with regard to how tags are applied...

Exactly.
Those are two different things; sometimes their configuration collide,
sometimes not.

> > The bridge constructs needed for supporting such setups are:
> > - per port: PVID
> > - per VLAN: port membership map
> > - per VLAN: port egress policy map
> 
> Ok, so from above, membership map is the exiting port_bitmap.

Ok.

> Egress policy map could be new untagged_bitmap.  We wouldn't need a tagged 
> policy map since a port can't be "in egress policy, but not in 
> membership map".

Yes, that is correct.

However I wouldn't call it "untagged_bitmap".
The name might suggest that "egress untagged" is an anomaly, where
"normal" behavior is egress tagged.
But as said, both are valid, its just a matter of configuration.

You basically need one more bit for each member port, stating
egress tagged/untagged.

> Sounds about right?  If so, I could probably work something up.

Yes, looking forward to review the code.

P.S.
Sorry for late spotting this; I don't follow net-dev regularly.
I hope to take a look at the code soon, see if I have any meaningful
comments.

Regards,
Shmulik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html