linux-kernel - Re: [RFC net-next v3 03/10] net: bridge: mrp: Add MRP interface used by netlink

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: <20200125191612.5dlzlvb7g2bucqna@lx-anielsen.microsemi.net>
Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 20:16:12 +0100
From:   "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        <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 03/10] net: bridge: mrp: Add MRP interface used
 by netlink

On 25.01.2020 16:20, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
>On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 12:37:26PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>> The 01/24/2020 18:43, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>> >
>> > > br_mrp_flush - will flush the FDB.
>> >
>> > How does this differ from a normal bridge flush? I assume there is a
>> > way for user space to flush the bridge FDB.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I seen corectly the normal bridge flush will clear the entire FDB for
>> all the ports of the bridge. In this case it is require to clear FDB
>> entries only for the ring ports.
>
>Maybe it would be better to extend the current bridge netlink call to
>be able to pass an optional interface to be flushed?  I'm not sure it
>is a good idea to have two APIs doing very similar things.
I agree.

And when looking at this again, I start to think that we should have
extended the existing netlink interface with new commands, instead of
adding a generic netlink.

/Allan