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]

Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:28:43 +0100
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>
CC:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, <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

The 01/25/2020 20:16, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
> 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.
I would look over this.

> 
> 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.
We could do also that. The main reason why I have added a new generic
netlink was that I thought it would be clearer what commands are for MRP
configuration. But if you think that we should go forward by extending
existing netlink interface, that is perfectly fine for me.

> 
> /Allan
> 

-- 
/Horatiu