netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 11:20:40 +0300
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.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>,
        <f.fainelli@...il.com>, <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: bridge: Notify about bridge VLANs

Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> writes:

> Hi Petr,
>
> Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com> writes:
>
>> Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> writes:
>>
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		err = br_switchdev_port_obj_add(dev, v->vid, flags);
>>>> +		if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>>>> +			goto out;
>>>>  	}
>>>
>>> Except that br_switchdev_port_obj_add taking vid and flags arguments
>>> seems confusing to me, the change looks good:
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Both VID and flags are sent with the
>> notification, so they need to be passed on to the function somehow. Do
>> you have a counterproposal for the API?
>
> I'm only questioning the code organization here, not the functional
> aspect which I do agree with. What I'm saying is that you name a new
> switchdev helper br_switchdev_port_OBJ_add, which takes VLAN arguments
> (vid and flags.) How would you call another eventual helper taking MDB
> arguments, br_switchdev_port_OBJ_add again? So something like
> br_switchdev_port_VLAN_add would be more intuitive.
>
> At the same time there's an effort to centralize all switchdev helpers
> of the bridge layer (i.e. the software -> hardware bridge calls) into
> net/bridge/br_switchdev.c, so that file would be more adequate.
>
> You may discard my comments but I think it'd be beneficial to us all to
> finally keep a bit of consistency in that bridge layer code.

Nope, those are reasonable points. I'll post a v2 along those lines.

Thanks,
Petr