netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] mlxsw: Support bridge router interfaces with non-default VLAN

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:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 18:06:09 +0900 (KST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     idosch@...lanox.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...lanox.com, petrm@...lanox.com,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] mlxsw: Support bridge router interfaces
 with non-default VLAN

From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:48:12 +0300

> Petr says:
> 
> When traffic is inserted on a router interface associated with an 802.1q
> bridge, the VLAN that the traffic appears on is determined by PVID of
> the bridge device itself. However currently mlxsw always configures such
> traffic to be forwarded to VLAN 1, regardless of the bridge PVID.
> 
> Fix the problem by modifying the FID-handling code to assign such
> traffic not to FID that corresponds to VLAN 1, but to a FID that
> corresponds to the configured PVID. Bail out if there is no PVID. This
> is implemented in patches #1 and #2.
> 
> From that point on, also forbid any changes to bridge device PVID,
> because such changes would not be reflected. This is implemented in
> patches #3, #4 and #5.
> 
> Finally in patch #6, introduce tests that use bridge as a routed
> interface, and test mlxsw in both the currently-supported scenario of
> using PVID 1, and the newly-supported one of using a custom PVID.

Series applied, thank you.