linux-kernel - Re: [[RFC PATCH v4 net-next] 0/2] net: dsa: hsr: Enable HSR HW offloading for KSZ9477

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: <20231003063401.5fc0ffb9@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 06:34:01 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>, Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, davem@...emloft.net,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [[RFC PATCH v4 net-next] 0/2] net: dsa: hsr: Enable HSR HW
 offloading for KSZ9477

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:02:22 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi @Jakub, I remember you fixed some issues with the dev->dev_addr writes,
> after dev_addr_lists.c was changed to a rbtree. Is it easy for you to
> tell if the change below is safe from an API perspective?
> 
> Is the answer "yes, because dev_uc_add() uses an addr_type of NETDEV_HW_ADDR_T_UNICAST,
> and dev->dev_addr uses NETDEV_HW_ADDR_T_LAN, so they never share a struct netdev_hw_addr
> for the same MAC address, and thus, they never collide"?
> 
> The DSA and 8021q drivers currently have this pattern, from around 2008.
> But 8021q also tracks NETDEV_CHANGEADDR events on the real_dev, which is
> absent in DSA. If the change below is safe, it would be a simpler solution.

FWIW I think it should be fine from the rbtree perspective, but IDK how
the user space would react to having a duplicate lladdr.