linux-kernel - Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] net: dsa: tag_mtk: skip address learning on transmit to standalone ports

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210730162403.p2dnwvwwgsxttomg@skbuf>
Date:   Fri, 30 Jul 2021 19:24:03 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>
Cc:     Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/2] net: dsa: tag_mtk: skip address learning on
 transmit to standalone ports

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 09:37:05PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Otherwise this is as correct as can be without implementing TX
> forwarding offload for the bridge (which you've explained why it doesn't
> map 1:1 with what your hw can do). But just because a port is under a bridge
> doesn't mean that the only packets it sends belong to that bridge. Think
> AF_PACKET sockets, PTP etc. The bridge also has a no_linklocal_learn
> option that maybe should be taken into consideration for drivers that
> can do something meaningful about it. Anyway, food for thought.

Considering that you also have the option of setting
ds->assisted_learning_on_cpu_port = true and this will have less false
positives, what are the reasons why you did not choose that approach?