netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 2/8] net: dsa: Give drivers the chance to veto certain upper devices

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:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 01:05:31 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Kamil Alkhouri <kamil.alkhouri@...offenburg.de>,
        ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 2/8] net: dsa: Give drivers the chance to
 veto certain upper devices

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 12:43:44PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 08:42:15AM +0100, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> > 
> > Some switches rely on unique pvids to ensure port separation in
> > standalone mode, because they don't have a port forwarding matrix
> > configurable in hardware. So, setups like a group of 2 uppers with the
> > same VLAN, swp0.100 and swp1.100, will cause traffic tagged with VLAN
> > 100 to be autonomously forwarded between these switch ports, in spite
> > of there being no bridge between swp0 and swp1.
> > 
> > These drivers need to prevent this from happening. They need to have
> > VLAN filtering enabled in standalone mode (so they'll drop frames tagged
> > with unknown VLANs) and they can only accept an 8021q upper on a port as
> > long as it isn't installed on any other port too. So give them the
> > chance to veto bad user requests.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
> > ---
> 
> In case reviewers have doubts about this new DSA operation in general.
> I would expect that when LAG support is merged, some drivers will
> support it, but not any tx_type, but e.g. just NETDEV_LAG_TX_TYPE_HASH.
> So it would also be helpful in that case, so they could veto other types
> of bond interfaces cleanly. So I do see the need for a generic
> "prechangeupper" operation given to drivers.

There is always the interesting question, do we want to veto, or
simply not accelerate it? We will want to consider that case by case.

       Andrew