netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] net: bridge: Notify about bridge VLANs

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

Date:   Fri, 25 May 2018 13:09:46 +0300
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jiri@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        razvan.stefanescu@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/7] net: bridge: Notify about bridge VLANs

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

> You seem to have approached the bridge changes a little differently from
> this series:
>
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/bridge/2016-November/010112.html

It pretty much extends the patchset to also send the notifications for
the CPU port.

I missed this e-mail yesterday and now I see you already found out for
yourself how it behaves.

> Both have the same intent that by targeting the bridge device itself,
> you can propagate that through switchdev to the switch drivers, and in
> turn create configurations where for instance, you have:
>
> - CPU/management port present in specific VLANs that is a subset or
> superset of the VLANs configured on front-panel ports
> - CPU/management port tagged/untagged in specific VLANs which can be a
> different setting from the front-panel ports
>
> One problem we have in DSA at the moment is that we always add the CPU
> port to the VLANs configured to the front-panel port but we do this with
> the same attributes as the front panel ports! For instance, if you add
> Port 0 to VLAN1 untagged, the the CPU port also gets added to that
> VLAN1, also untagged. As long as there is just one VLAN untagged, this
> is not much of a problem. Now do this with another VLAN or another port,
> and the CPU can no longer differentiate the traffic from which VLAN it
> is coming from, no bueno.

Yep, with this patchset you should be able to use the CPU port
notifications to configure things exactly.

> bridge vlan add vid 2 dev port0 pvid untagged
> 	-> port0 (e.g: switch port 0) gets programmed
> 	-> CPU port gets programmed
> 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
>
> Are these use cases possible with your series? It seems to me like it is
> if we drop the netif_is_bridge_master() checks and resolve orig_dev as
> being a hint for the CPU/management port.

Yeah, that's how it behaves. If you accept the events where
netif_is_bridge_master(orig_dev), you can tell the CPU port-related
events from the rest by BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_BRENTRY.

Thanks,
Petr