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, 20 Feb 2022 11:21:43 +0200
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Hans Schultz <schultz.hans+netdev@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Suryaputra <ssuryaextr@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
        Amit Cohen <amcohen@...dia.com>,
        Po-Hsu Lin <po-hsu.lin@...onical.com>,
        Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Add support for
 bridge port locked mode

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 12:00:34PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 04:51:47PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
> > index ab41619a809b..46b7381899a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/port.c
> > @@ -1234,6 +1234,39 @@ int mv88e6xxx_port_set_mirror(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> > +int mv88e6xxx_port_set_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip, int port,
> > +			    bool locked)
> > +{
> > +	u16 reg;
> > +	int err;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, &reg);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_MASK;
> > +	if (locked)
> > +		reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0_SA_FILT_DROP_ON_LOCK;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_CTL0, reg);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_read(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, &reg);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	reg &= ~MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT;
> > +	if (locked)
> > +		reg |= MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR_LOCKED_PORT;
> > +
> > +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_write(chip, port, MV88E6XXX_PORT_ASSOC_VECTOR, reg);
> 
> 	return mv88e6xxx_port_write(...);

Not familiar with mv88e6xxx, but shouldn't there be a rollback of
previous operations? Specifically mv88e6xxx_port_write()

> 
> > +	if (err)
> > +		return err;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}

Powered by blists - more mailing lists