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:   Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:46:25 -0500
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, andrew@...n.ch, jiri@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/3] net: bridge: Allow bridge master device to configure switch CPU port

Hi Florian,

Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> writes:

> bridge vlan add vid 2 dev br0 self
> 	-> CPU port gets programmed
> bridge vlan add vid 2 dev port0
> 	-> port0 (switch port 0) gets programmed

Although this is not specific to this patch, I'd like to point out that
this seems not to be the behavior bridge expects.

The bridge manpage says:

    bridge vlan add - add a new vlan filter entry
    ...

       self   the vlan is configured on the specified physical device.
              Required if the device is the bridge device.

       master the vlan is configured on the software bridge (default).

So if I'm not mistaken, the switch chip must be programmed only when the
bridge command is called with the "self" attribute. Without it, only
software configuration must be made, like what happens when the driver
returns -EOPNOTSUPP.

Currently, both commands below program the hardware:

    # bridge vlan add vid 2 dev port0 [master]
    # bridge vlan add vid 2 dev port0 [master] self

Jiri, what do you think? Is there a reason for switchdev not to be
consistent with the bridge doc, or should this be fixed?

Thanks,

        Vivien

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ