netdev - Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] net: bridge: Allow CPU port configuration

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: <87k2bvzg5k.fsf@ketchup.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me>
Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:29:59 -0500
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, andrew@...n.ch, jiri@...lanox.com,
        idosch@...lanox.com, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 0/3] net: bridge: Allow CPU port configuration

Hi Florian,

Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> writes:

> This patch series allows using the bridge master interface to configure
> an Ethernet switch port's CPU/management port with different VLAN attributes than
> those of the bridge downstream ports/members.
>
> Jiri, Ido, Andrew, Vivien, please review the impact on mlxsw and mv88e6xxx, I
> tested this with b53 and a mockup DSA driver.

Patchset looks fine to me overall. I'm cooking a patch similar to 3/3
for mv88e6xxx to put on top of this patchset.

Minor comments in individual patchs will follow.

> Open questions:
>
> - if we have more than one bridge on top of a physical switch, the driver
>   should keep track of that and verify that we are not going to change
>   the CPU port VLAN attributes in a way that results in incompatible settings
>   to be applied

In mv88e6xxx, mv88e6xxx_port_check_hw_vlan() does that. It needs a small
adjustment though.

> - if the default behavior is to have all VLANs associated with the CPU port
>   be ingressing/egressing tagged to the CPU, is this really useful?

I have no strong opinion on this. Intuitively I'd expect the CPU port to
be excluded until I add it myself, but I didn't think much about it.

Thanks,

        Vivien