linux-kernel - Re: [RFC net-next v3 09/10] net: bridge: mrp: Integrate MRP into the bridge

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]

Message-ID: <20200125154248.GC18311@lunn.ch>
Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:42:48 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jiri@...nulli.us,
        ivecera@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, anirudh.venkataramanan@...el.com,
        olteanv@...il.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next v3 09/10] net: bridge: mrp: Integrate MRP into the
 bridge

On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:18:27PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> To integrate MRP into the bridge, the bridge needs to do the following:
> - initialized and destroy the generic netlink used by MRP
> - detect if the MRP frame was received on a port that is part of a MRP ring. In
>   case it was not, then forward the frame as usual, otherwise redirect the frame
>   to the upper layer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
> ---
>  net/bridge/br.c         | 11 +++++++++++
>  net/bridge/br_device.c  |  3 +++
>  net/bridge/br_if.c      |  6 ++++++
>  net/bridge/br_input.c   | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  net/bridge/br_private.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
>  5 files changed, 48 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br.c b/net/bridge/br.c
> index b6fe30e3768f..d5e556eed4ba 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br.c
> @@ -344,6 +344,12 @@ static int __init br_init(void)
>  	if (err)
>  		goto err_out5;
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_MRP
> +	err = br_mrp_netlink_init();
> +	if (err)
> +		goto err_out6;
> +#endif

Please try to avoid #ifdef's like this in C code. Add a stub function
to br_private_mrp.h.

If you really cannot avoid #ifdef, please use #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BRIDGE_MRP).
That expands to

	if (0) {

        }

So the compiler will compile it and then optimize it out. That gives
us added benefit of build testing, we don't suddenly find the code no
longer compiles when we enable the option.

> --- a/net/bridge/br_input.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_input.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,9 @@
>  #include <linux/rculist.h>
>  #include "br_private.h"
>  #include "br_private_tunnel.h"
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_MRP
> +#include "br_private_mrp.h"
> +#endif

It should always be safe to include a header file.

   Andrew