netdev - Re: [patch net-next v2 07/10] bridge: call netdev_sw_port_stp_update when bridge port STP status changes

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: <20141110140452.GB19157@casper.infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 14:04:52 +0000
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Cc:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, nhorman@...driver.com, andy@...yhouse.net,
	dborkman@...hat.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com, jesse@...ira.com,
	pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com, ben@...adent.org.uk,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
	vyasevic@...hat.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
	john.r.fastabend@...el.com, edumazet@...gle.com, sfeldma@...il.com,
	f.fainelli@...il.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
	linville@...driver.com, jasowang@...hat.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, ryazanov.s.a@...il.com,
	buytenh@...tstofly.org, aviadr@...lanox.com, nbd@...nwrt.org,
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, Neil.Jerram@...aswitch.com,
	ronye@...lanox.com, simon.horman@...ronome.com,
	alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com, john.ronciak@...el.com,
	mleitner@...hat.com, shrijeet@...il.com, gospo@...ulusnetworks.com,
	bcrl@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v2 07/10] bridge: call netdev_sw_port_stp_update
 when bridge port STP status changes

On 11/10/14 at 08:11am, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> You are unconditionally calling
> netdev_sw_port_stp_update(p->dev, p->state);
> Again issue is policy. Could you make this work the same
> way the fdb_add e.g user intent of whether i want to turn
> a port in hardware and/or software to disabled/learning/etc
> is reflected?

Agreed. Can be added in a next series perhaps?

> btw: does _sw_ stand for switch? why not _hw_ ?
> Could we have one ndo for all flags instead of individual ones.
> 
> I know the current user space code uses u8 as a bitflag; but
> maybe we can introduce a new u32 flag bitmask that has all the
> flags set for backward compat? I can count about a total of 10.

I think we can just extend the size of IFLA_BRPORT_STATE, accept
both a u8 and u32, and return a u32 that that is compatible to
existing u8 readers.
--
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