linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v1 1/2] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Fix start index in gswip_port

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: <20220518114555.piutpdmdzvst2cvu@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 14:45:55 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v1 1/2] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Fix start index in
 gswip_port_fdb()

Hi Martin,

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 09:40:14PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> The first N entries in priv->vlans are reserved for managing ports which
> are not part of a bridge. Use priv->hw_info->max_ports to consistently
> access per-bridge entries at index 7. Starting at
> priv->hw_info->cpu_port (6) is harmless in this case because
> priv->vlan[6].bridge is always NULL so the comparison result is always
> false (which results in this entry being skipped).
> 
> Fixes: 58c59ef9e930c4 ("net: dsa: lantiq: Add Forwarding Database access")
> Acked-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
> ---

The patch, as well as other improvements you might want to bring to the gswip driver
(we have more streamlined support in DSA now for FDB isolation, see ds->fdb_isolation)
is appreciated.

But I don't think that a code cleanup patch that makes no functional
difference, and isn't otherwise needed by other backported patches,
should be sent to the "net" tree, and be backported to "stable" later?