netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] net: add VEPA, VEB bridge mode

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:	Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:38:04 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
CC:	bhutchings@...arflare.com, buytenh@...tstofly.org,
	eilong@...adcom.com, eric.w.multanen@...el.com,
	gregory.v.rose@...el.com, hadi@...erus.ca,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, mst@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com, sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] net: add VEPA, VEB bridge mode

On 6/4/2012 7:59 AM, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com> wrote on 05/30/2012 08:37:06
> AM:
> 
> Some comments below:
> 
>> +static int rtnl_bridge_notify(struct net_device *dev, u16 flags)
>> +{
>> ...
>> +		 if (!flags && master && master->netdev_ops->
> ndo_bridge_getlink)
>> +		 		 err = master->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_getlink(skb,
> 0, 0, dev);
>> +		 else if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_getlink)
>> +		 		 err = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_getlink(skb, 0,
> 0, dev);
> 
> I think you should do something like:
> 
>         if ((flags == BRIDGE_FLAGS_MASTER) && ...)
>                 ...
> 
> Also you could use BRIDGE_FLAGS_MASTER=1, SELF=2, and use
> "if (flags & BRIDGE_FLAGS_MASTER)" for consistency?

OK this is likely a good thing otherwise user space is a
bit tedious when managing FDB and bridge modes. We do still
need the !flags case to support existing applications though,
(we must maintain existing semantics)

if (!flags || (flags & BRIDGE_FLAGS_MASTER) && ...)
	...
else (flags & BRIDGE_FLAGS_SELF)
	...

> 
> 
> +		 if (!err)
> +		 		 err = rtnl_bridge_notify(dev, flags);
> 
> It is possible to return a reporting error even though
> the operation succeeded. Maybe something that could be
> done here to indicate that the operation succeeded, or
> is that a TODO?
> 

The problem is if rtnl_bridge_notify fails due to memory
constraints or otherwise. In this case the set has already
completed successfully as you note so we should not return
any error. This should fix it if I understand your concern
correctly.

	if (!err)
		rtnl_bridge_notify(dev, flags);
	return err;



>>  static int rtnl_bridge_setlink(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr
> *nlh,
>>                  void *arg)
>>  {
> ..
>> +   if (!flags && dev->master &&
>> +       dev->master->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_setlink)
>> +      err = dev->master->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_setlink(dev, nlh);
>> +   else if ((flags & BRIDGE_FLAGS_SELF) &&
>> +         dev->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_setlink)
> 
> Same usage of MASTER here.

Agreed. Thanks.

> 
> Thanks,
> - KK
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html