netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] switchdev: support stp updates on stacked netdevices

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: <20150315191722.GE3518@nanopsycho.orion>
Date:	Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:17:22 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] switchdev: support stp updates on
 stacked netdevices

Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 07:08:02PM CET, sfeldma@...il.com wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:31 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>> From: roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 06:25:24 -0700
>>
>>> David, if you mean not touch bond and team but have the switchdev
>>> api do it transparently, yes, i had it that way initially.  And i do
>>> liked it that way as well. But the feedback i received (during the
>>> initial introduction of this for setlink/dellink) was to make it
>>> explicit for each master.
>>
>> I think the concern is that we only want to do this for devices
>> for which it is safe to "traverse" down like this.
>>
>> But frankly I cannot think of any layered device where we would
>> not want to do this.
>>
>> Let's go back to the simple scheme where we unconditionally traverse
>> and if we hit a problem case we'll figure out how to deal with it
>> then, ok?
>
>Here's a way to do it without touching team/bonding/vlan drivers, but
>also giving us flexibility to down the road to intercept the call in
>the team/bonding/vlan driver and change the behavior by implementing
>swdev_port_stp_update in the middle driver.
>
>I would prefer this approach not only for STP updates but also for
>port attr set/get calls.
>
>
>/**
> *      netdev_switch_port_stp_update - Notify switch device port of STP
> *                                      state change
> *      @dev: bridge port device
> *      @state: bridge port STP state
> *
> *      Notify switch device port of bridge port STP state change.
> */
>int netdev_switch_port_stp_update(struct net_device *dev, u8 state)
>{
>        const struct swdev_ops *ops = dev->swdev_ops;
>        struct net_device *lower_dev;
>        struct list_head *iter;
>        int err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
>        if (ops && ops->swdev_port_stp_update)
>                return ops->swdev_port_stp_update(dev, state);
>
>        /* Bridged switch device port(s) may be stacked under
>         * bond/team/vlan dev, so recurse down to stp-update
>         * them one at a time.
>         */
>
>        netdev_for_each_lower_dev(dev, lower_dev, iter) {
>                err = netdev_switch_port_stp_update(lower_dev, state);
>                if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>                        return err;
>        }


I don't like this blind approach. Note that with this, you enable this
for lower devices of:
bond
ipvlan
macvlan
team
vlan
batman-adv

Does that make sense? I think it is better just pick what we want to
support now and implement it there. That makes things clearer and
confusion-prone.

Jiri
--
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