netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net:dsa:mv88e6xxx: use hashtable to store multicast entries

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:31:06 +0100
From:   John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
To:     Volodymyr Bendiuga <volodymyr.bendiuga@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Volodymyr Bendiuga <valdr.linuxnext@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Volodymyr Bendiuga <volodymyr.bendiuga@...termo.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] net:dsa:mv88e6xxx: use hashtable to store
 multicast entries



On 16/12/2016 10:24, Volodymyr Bendiuga wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Does this mean we all agree on implementing caching
> mechanism in net/dsa layer? If yes, then I can start
> working on it immediately.
> 
> Regards,
> Volodymyr

i think that the brcm approach is better as at least on QCA you can also
read auto learned values from the table which would get broken by a
caching mechanism. filtering inside the dump function or the code
calling the dump function seams a lot simpler and lightweight to me.

	John

> 
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Vivien Didelot
> <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com
> <mailto:vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com
>     <mailto:f.fainelli@...il.com>> writes:
> 
>     >> In all cases *if caching is really needed*, I think it won't hurt to do
>     >> it in DSA core even if a switch support FDB dump operations on a
>     >> per-port basis, as Andrew mentioned.
>     >
>     > Agreed, and there does not appear to be any need to new dsa_switch_ops
>     > operations to be introduced?
> 
>     Nope.
> 
>