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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 09:37:12 -0700 From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com> To: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> Cc: Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kernel <kernel@...oirfairelinux.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/7] net: switchdev: support static FDB addresses On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> wrote: > On 15-08-05 23:28:15, Scott Feldman wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 10:44 PM, Vivien Didelot >> <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> wrote: >> > This patch adds a is_static boolean to the switchdev_obj_fdb structure, >> > in order to set the ndm_state to either NUD_NOARP or NUD_REACHABLE. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> >> > --- >> > include/net/switchdev.h | 1 + >> > net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 2 +- >> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h >> > index e90e1a0..0e296b8 100644 >> > --- a/include/net/switchdev.h >> > +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h >> > @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ struct switchdev_obj { >> > struct switchdev_obj_fdb { /* PORT_FDB */ >> > u8 addr[ETH_ALEN]; >> > u16 vid; >> > + bool is_static; >> >> What do you think about changing this to u16 ndm_state? That way, it >> can be used on input (fdb add) and output (fdb dump), and the driver >> can privately track the state, kind of like how the bridge keeps >> is_static, is_local, etc. > > I'm OK with the change. Should we consider NUD_NONE (0) a valid value? > >> > } fdb; >> > } u; >> > }; >> > diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >> > index 9db87a3..e9d1cac 100644 >> > --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >> > +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c >> > @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static int switchdev_port_fdb_dump_cb(struct net_device *dev, >> > ndm->ndm_flags = NTF_SELF; >> > ndm->ndm_type = 0; >> > ndm->ndm_ifindex = dev->ifindex; >> > - ndm->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE; >> > + ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.is_static ? NUD_NOARP : NUD_REACHABLE; > > In other word, do we prefer this: > > ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.ndm_state == NUD_NONE ? > NUD_REACHABLE : obj->u.fdb.ndm_state; > > Or this (meaning switchdev users cannot leave it blank and must at least > set NUD_REACHABLE themselves): > > ndm->ndm_state = obj->u.fdb.ndm_state; My preference would be this option. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists