netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] bridge: new attribute and flags to represent vlan info lists and ranges

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 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:	Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:08:17 -0800
From:	Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@...il.com>
To:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com, vyasevic@...hat.com,
	sfeldma@...il.com, wkok@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] bridge: new attribute and flags to
 represent vlan info lists and ranges

Roopa,

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 01:17:31PM -0800, roopa wrote:
> On 12/31/14, 10:48 AM, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> >Roopa,
> >
> >On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 10:15:53AM -0800, roopa wrote:
> >>On 12/31/14, 9:45 AM, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> >>>Roopa,
> >>>
> >>>On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 08:48:52AM -0800, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
> >>>>From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>This patch adds (as suggested by scott feldman),
> >>>>         - new netlink attribute IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_LIST to represent
> >>>>           vlan list
> >>>>         - And bridge_vlan_info flags BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_START and
> >>>>           BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_END to indicate start and end of vlan range
> >>>>
> >>>>Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
> >>>>---
> >>>>  include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h |    4 ++++
> >>>>  net/bridge/br_netlink.c        |    1 +
> >>>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h
> >>>>index b03ee8f..fa468aa 100644
> >>>>--- a/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h
> >>>>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_bridge.h
> >>>>@@ -112,12 +112,14 @@ struct __fdb_entry {
> >>>>   *     [IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS]
> >>>>   *     [IFLA_BRIDGE_MODE]
> >>>>   *     [IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO]
> >>>>+ *     [IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_LIST]
> >>>>   * }
> >>>>   */
> >>>>  enum {
> >>>>  	IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS,
> >>>>  	IFLA_BRIDGE_MODE,
> >>>>  	IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO,
> >>>>+	IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_LIST,
> >>>>  	__IFLA_BRIDGE_MAX,
> >>>>  };
> >>>>  #define IFLA_BRIDGE_MAX (__IFLA_BRIDGE_MAX - 1)
> >>>>@@ -125,6 +127,8 @@ enum {
> >>>>  #define BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_MASTER	(1<<0)	/* Operate on Bridge device as well */
> >>>>  #define BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID	(1<<1)	/* VLAN is PVID, ingress untagged */
> >>>>  #define BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_UNTAGGED	(1<<2)	/* VLAN egresses untagged */
> >>>>+#define BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_START	(1<<3) /* VLAN is start of vlan range */
> >>>>+#define BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_END	(1<<4) /* VLAN is end of vlan range */
> >>>You add these here but you don't use them until the next patch.
> >>>If they were wrong a bisect would point to the next patch.
> >>>
> >>>I would add them in the next patch where you start to use them.
> >>I thought it was ok to declare it first and use them in the next patch. Only
> >>the other way around would be bad.
> >>  I have submitted in a similar way before. If needed i will resubmit.
> >>
> >>
> >Hmm.  I cannot see how the other way would be bad but maybe I am missing
> >something.
> sorry, i did not mean what you were saying would be bad. I was just trying
> to say that, use first and declare later would be bad (ie if my patches 1
> and 2 were swapped). Otherwise i don't see a problem.
> 
Now I understand.  Yes, swapping the patches would be bad.

> I know that you are saying i should combine the patches 1 and 2 into a
> single patch. That is not a problem. If i need to respin again due to other
> reasons i will consider merging them as well if that is a concern.
> 
Er, well not quite.  I don't think both patches should be combined in to
one.  I would only move those two #defines that I pointed out in the
first patch in to the second patch.

I hope that makes a little more sense :)

> thanks.
> 
> >  Hopefully someone else has some insight.
> >
> >>
> >>>>  struct bridge_vlan_info {
> >>>>  	__u16 flags;
> >>>>diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
> >>>>index 9f5eb55..492ef6a 100644
> >>>>--- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
> >>>>+++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
> >>>>@@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ static const struct nla_policy ifla_br_policy[IFLA_MAX+1] = {
> >>>>  	[IFLA_BRIDGE_MODE]	= { .type = NLA_U16 },
> >>>>  	[IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO]	= { .type = NLA_BINARY,
> >>>>  				    .len = sizeof(struct bridge_vlan_info), },
> >>>>+	[IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_LIST] = { .type = NLA_NESTED, },
> >>>>  };
> >>>>  static int br_afspec(struct net_bridge *br,
> >>>>-- 
> >>>>1.7.10.4
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>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
> 

-- 
- Jeremiah Mahler
--
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