netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add MDB support

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: <20160831135719.GC15078@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:57:19 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel@...oirfairelinux.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add MDB support

Hi Vivien

> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> index 93abfff..812cb47 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
> @@ -2240,6 +2240,15 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump_one(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip,
>  				fdb->ndm_state = NUD_NOARP;
>  			else
>  				fdb->ndm_state = NUD_REACHABLE;
> +		} else {

Rather than else, i think it would be safer to do

		if (obj->id == SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_MDB) {
> +			struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb;
> +
> +			if (!is_multicast_ether_addr(addr.mac))
> +				continue;
> +
> +			mdb = SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_MDB(obj);
> +			mdb->vid = vid;
> +			ether_addr_copy(mdb->addr, addr.mac);
>  		}

It should not happen, but the day it does, we get very confused...

> +static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_dump(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> +				   struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb,
> +				   int (*cb)(struct switchdev_obj *obj))
> +{
> +	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds_to_priv(ds);
> +	int err;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&chip->reg_lock);
> +	err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_dump(chip, port, &mdb->obj, cb);
> +	mutex_unlock(&chip->reg_lock);
> +
> +	return err;
> +}

Isn't this identical to mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_dump()? Maybe we should
just have one function, and register it twice?

     Andrew