netdev - Re: switchdev and VLAN ranges

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:	Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:12:09 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Elad Raz <eladr@...lanox.com>,
	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: switchdev and VLAN ranges

Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:36:26PM CEST, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 10/10/2015 09:49 AM, Elad Raz wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 10, 2015, at 2:30 AM, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have two concerns in mind:
>>>
>>> a) if we imagine that drivers like Rocker allocate memory in the prepare
>>> phase for each VID, preparing a range like 100-4000 would definitely not
>>> be recommended.
>>>
>>> b) imagine that you have two Linux bridges on a switch, one using the
>>> hardware VLAN 100. If you request the VLAN range 99-101 for the other
>>> bridge members, it is not possible for the driver to say "I can
>>> accelerate VLAN 99 and 101, but not 100". It must return OPNOTSUPP for
>>> the whole range.
>> 
>> Another concern I have with vid_being..vid_end range is the “flags”. Where flags can be BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID.
>> There is no sense having more than one VLAN as a PVID.
>> This leave the HW vendor the choice which VLAN id they will use as the PVID.
>> 
>
>iproute2 doesn't allow to do it but I can see that someone can actually make it
>so the flags for the range have it and it doesn't look correct. Perhaps we need
>something like the patch below to enforce this from kernel-side.
>
>
>diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>index d78b4429505a..02b17b53e9a6 100644
>--- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>+++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>@@ -524,6 +524,9 @@ static int br_afspec(struct net_bridge *br,
> 			if (vinfo_start)
> 				return -EINVAL;
> 			vinfo_start = vinfo;
>+			/* don't allow range of pvids */
>+			if (vinfo_start->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID)
>+				return -EINVAL;
> 			continue;
> 		}
> 

Looks correct to me. Could you please submit this properly? Thanks!
--
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