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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 31 Dec 2014 20:25:41 -0800
From:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Jeremiah Mahler <jmmahler@...il.com>, 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

On 12/31/14, 7:08 PM, Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> 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 :)
okay :).

thanks,
Roopa

>
>> 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

--
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