linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers

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: <553c573ad6a2ddfccfc47c7847cc5fb7@kapio-technology.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Aug 2022 09:37:54 +0200
From:   netdev@...io-technology.com
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry
 flag to drivers

On 2022-08-23 09:24, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:13:54AM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com 
> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-23 08:48, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:49:28AM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> > > As I am not familiar with roaming in this context, I need to know
>> > > how the SW
>> > > bridge should behave in this case.
>> >
>> 
>> > > In this case, is the roaming only between locked ports or does the
>> > > roaming include that the entry can move to a unlocked port, resulting
>> > > in the locked flag getting removed?
>> >
>> > Any two ports. If the "locked" entry in mv88e6xxx cannot move once
>> > installed, then the "sticky" flag accurately describes it.
>> >
>> 
>> But since I am also doing the SW bridge implementation without 
>> mv88e6xxx I
>> need it to function according to needs.
>> Thus the locked entries created in the bridge I shall not put the 
>> sticky
>> flag on, but there will be the situation where a locked entry can move 
>> to an
>> unlocked port, which we regarded as a bug.
> 
> I do not regard this as a bug. It makes sense to me that an authorized
> port can cause an entry pointing to an unauthorized port to roam to
> itself. Just like normal learned entries. What I considered as a bug is
> the fact that the "locked" flag is not cleared when roaming to an
> authorized port.
> 
>> In that case there is two possibilities, the locked entry can move to
>> an unlocked port with the locked flag being removed or the locked
>> entry can only move to another locked port?
> 
> My suggestion is to allow roaming and maintain / clear the "locked" 
> flag
> based on whether the new destination port is locked or not.

Thus I understand it as saying that the "locked" flag can also be set 
when roaming from an unlocked port to a locked port?