netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bridge: push bridge setting ageing

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]

Date:	Sat, 10 Oct 2015 23:09:19 +0200
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com" <siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com>,
	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
	"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time
 down to switchdev

Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 05:56:19PM CEST, vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com wrote:
>On Oct. Saturday 10 (41) 09:04 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 04:53:52AM CEST, sfeldma@...il.com wrote:
>> >On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Premkumar Jonnala <pjonnala@...adcom.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: sfeldma@...il.com [mailto:sfeldma@...il.com]
>> >>> Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 7:53 AM
>> >>> To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> >>> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; jiri@...nulli.us; siva.mannem.lnx@...il.com;
>> >>> Premkumar Jonnala; stephen@...workplumber.org;
>> >>> roopa@...ulusnetworks.com; andrew@...n.ch; f.fainelli@...il.com;
>> >>> vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com
>> >>> Subject: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bridge: push bridge setting ageing_time down
>> >>> to switchdev
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
>> >>>
>> >>> Use SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP to skip over ports in bridge that don't
>> >>> support setting ageing_time (or setting bridge attrs in general).
>> >>>
>> >>> If push fails, don't update ageing_time in bridge and return err to user.
>> >>>
>> >>> If push succeeds, update ageing_time in bridge and run gc_timer now to
>> >>> recalabrate when to run gc_timer next, based on new ageing_time.
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >>> +int br_set_ageing_time(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ageing_time)
>> >>> +{
>> >>> +     struct switchdev_attr attr = {
>> >>> +             .id = SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_BRIDGE_AGEING_TIME,
>> >>> +             .flags = SWITCHDEV_F_SKIP_EOPNOTSUPP,
>> >>> +             .u.ageing_time = ageing_time,
>> >>> +     };
>> >>> +     unsigned long t = clock_t_to_jiffies(ageing_time);
>> >>> +     int err;
>> >>> +
>> >>> +     if (t < BR_MIN_AGEING_TIME || t > BR_MAX_AGEING_TIME)
>> >>> +             return -ERANGE;
>> >>> +
>> >>> +     err = switchdev_port_attr_set(br->dev, &attr);
>> >>
>> >> A thought - given that the ageing time is not a per-bridge-port attr, why are we using a "port based api"
>> >> to pass the attribute down?  May be I'm missing something here?
>> >
>> >I think Florian raised the same point earlier.  Sigh, I think this
>> >should be addressed....v4 coming soon...thanks guys for keeping the
>> >standard high.
>> 
>> Scott, can you tell us how do you want to address this? I like the
>> current implementation.
>
>Scott, didn't you have a plan to add a struct device for the parent of
>switchdev ports?
>
>I think it would be good to introduce such device with an helper to
>retrieve this upper parent, and move the switchdev ops to this guy.
>
>So switchdev drivers may implement such API calls:
>
>    .obj_add(struct device *swdev, struct switchdev_obj *obj);
>
>    .port_obj_add(struct device *swdev, struct net_device *port,
>                  struct switchdev_obj *obj);
>
>Then switchdev code may have a parent API and the current port API may
>look like this:
>
>    int switchdev_port_obj_add(struct net_device *dev,
>                               struct switchdev_obj *obj)
>    {
>        struct device *swdev = switchdev_get_parent(dev);
>        int err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
>        if (swdev && swdev->switchdev_ops &&
>            swdev->switchdev_ops->port_obj_add)
>            err = swdev->switchdev_ops->port_obj_add(swdev, dev, obj);
>
>        return err;
>    }

Fro the record, I don't see any reason for this "device". It would just
introduce unnecessary complexicity. So far, we are fine without it.
--
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