linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dsa: marvell: Provide per device information about max frame size

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:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 13:14:01 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dsa: marvell: Provide per device information
 about max frame size

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:02:19PM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:39:08AM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > Are there any more comments, or is this patch set eligible for
> > > pulling into net-next tree?  
> > 
> > How about responding to the comment that was already posted first?
> 
> Could you be more specific?
> 
> 
> On the beginning (first posted version) the patch included 9 patches
> (which included work for ADDR4 for some mv88e6020 setup).
> 
> But after the discussion, I've decided to split this patch set to
> smaller pieces;
> 
> First to add the set_max_frame size with basic definition for mv88e6020
> and mv88e6071 and then follow with more complicated changes (for which
> there is no agreement on how to tackle them).
> 
> For the 'set_max_frame' feature Alexander Dyuck had some comments
> regarding defensive programming approach, but finally he agreed with
> Andrew's approach.
> 
> As of now - the v4 has been Acked by Andrew, so it looks like at least
> this "part" of the work is eligible for upstreaming.
> 
> 
> Or there are any more issues about which I've forgotten ?

Do you agree that for the chip families which neither implement
port_set_jumbo_size() nor set_max_frame_size(), a max MTU of 1492 will
be returned, which currently produces warnings at probe time and should
be fixed first, prior to refactoring the code?
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230106101651.1137755-1-lukma@denx.de/#25149891