netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 7/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: restore VLANTable map control

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: <20160226220942.GB1560@lunn.ch>
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 2016 23:09:42 +0100
From:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:	Kevin Smith <kevin.smith@...csyscorp.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kernel@...oirfairelinux.com" <kernel@...oirfairelinux.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 7/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: restore VLANTable map
 control

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:37:39PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Kevin, Andrew,
> 
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 08:45:28PM +0000, Kevin Smith wrote:
> >> Hi Vivien,
> >> 
> >> On 02/26/2016 12:16 PM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> >> > +	/* allow CPU port or DSA link(s) to send frames to every port */
> >> > +	if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port) || dsa_is_dsa_port(ds, port)) {
> >> > +		output_ports = mask;
> >> > +	} else {
> >
> >> Is this always correct?  Are there situations where a CPU or neighboring 
> >> switch should not be allowed to access another port? (e.g. Figure 6 or 7 
> >> in the 88E6352 functional specification).
> 
> Given Linux expectations (described below by Andrew) I'd say yes, this
> is always correct. But I'd be curious to know if someone has counter
> examples for this.
> 
> > What do these figures show?
> 
> The figure shows the following VLANTable config:
> 
> Port  0  1  2  3  4  5  6
>   0   -  *  *  *  -  -  *
>   1   *  -  *  *  -  -  *
>   2   *  *  -  *  -  -  *
>   3   *  *  *  -  -  -  *
>   4   -  -  -  -  -  *  -
>   5   -  -  -  -  *  -  -
>   6   *  *  *  *  -  -  -
> 
> There is two independant groups: 0, 1, 2, 3, 6 (LAN, 6 is CPU/Router),
> and 4, 5 (4 is WAN and 5 is CPU/Router):

Ah, two CPU interfaces. We don't support that yet.  I do have patches,
but i took a different approach. They just load balance, by some
definition of 'load balance' between the two CPU ports.

	   Andrew