linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: dts: ls1028a: sl28: use ocelot-8021q tagging by default"

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20221027203611.e4spuamslzv7ph3n@skbuf>
Date:   Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:36:12 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
CC:     Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Heiko Thiery <heiko.thiery@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "arm64: dts: ls1028a: sl28: use ocelot-8021q
 tagging by default"

On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:10:20PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> If one would a new tagger you'd need to add it to
> dsa_tag_proto_names[] as well as adding the tagger source file. Thus,
> two places to keep in sync. And you don't have all the information in
> one place, e.g. the tagger module. The name of the tagger as used in
> sysfs or device tree is then in the core. Just wanted to point that out.
> After all it's up to you as the maintainer to decide ;)

True, there are already 2 places you need to keep in sync, you already
need to add the tagger id to include/net/dsa.h (twice). The header is
shared between taggers, the DSA core and device drivers. A third place
would indeed be a bit too much.

Actually I came to like your idea with 2 modaliases. I prepared a patch
set and I'm in the process of testing it (need to rebuild everything
with modules, which I usually skip). If it works, I'll post it as an RFC
soon.