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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <54F0A4DE.3020704@nexvision.fr> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:09:50 +0100 From: Andrey Volkov <andrey.volkov@...vision.fr> To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>, jerome.oufella@...oirfairelinux.com, Chris Healy <cphealy@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] net: dsa: integrate with SWITCHDEV for HW bridging Gunter, Sorry with response delay, I very was busy yesterday Le 25/02/2015 15:25, Guenter Roeck a écrit : > Andrey, ------- snip ------- >>> >> I simply modify port's fid to the new one in the leave routine and set to common bridge FID in enter >> (I'm using Marvell's chips). So the port's database will cleaned up automatically for the leave and will >> contain something useful at the enter time. Also I've look through yours patches and I haven't > > Does removing a port from a fid clean up the entries associated with it > in the database ? I've checked what happened when port changed its FID: switch logic block traffic to it immediately, as far as I can see, meanwhile record still exists in the bridge database, it was checked on 88e6185, 88e6097 and 88e6352 chips. And yet another 5c: changing of group membership is not atomic operation in the Marvell's chips known for me, so the port must be in the disabled state when it will happened. > >> seen any mutichip bridges/hardwared "trunks" support (in the Marvell's sense), did anyone, except me, use it? >> > Not me. That would be difficult to test without real hardware. > > The above suggests that you have a HW bridge implementation for Marvell chips as well. > Would it make sense to merge our implementations, or just use yours if it is better ? > >> Btw your current FID implementation contain funny security problem: same ports in the different chips, >> interconnected by DSA, will have same FID and as result they will treated as bridged together by >> internal switch logic... >> > You mean if multiple switch chips are used ? Those ports are configured to only send > data to the CPU port. Doesn't that take care of the problem ? Granted, I have not > looked into multi-chip applications, so there may well be some problems. Maybe > it is possible to merge a chip ID into the fid to solve it. > > Thanks, > Guenter > Regards, Andrey -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists