netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 10/14] net: vlan: Propagate MC addresses with VID through switchdev

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: <20190121091718.GA29986@apalos>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:17:18 +0200
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "vivien.didelot@...il.com" <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        "ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org" <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
        "roopa@...ulusnetworks.com" <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com" <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/14] net: vlan: Propagate MC addresses with
 VID through switchdev

Hi Ido,
> > 
> > The reason why I chose switchdev here is because:
> > 
> > - this is mostly relevant for switch devices, not so much for NICs (it
> > seems), if it was, they would have solved the problem by now
> 
> I don't see any use of switchdev APIs in the driver Ivan is patching.
> The cover letter doesn't indicate anything about it either.

There were RFCs for it a few months ago https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/929367/

We decided that rewriting the driver instead of adding switchdev support on
the current one is cleaner and preferred, so we'll be posting a new driver for
this at some point (most of the work is already done).

> 
> > - this allows to have an unified path from the switch driver perspective
> > to program MDB addresses targeting the CPU/management port, no need to
> > have X different ways of doing the same operation
> 
> But it's not the same thing. Allowing certain packets to ingress the
> device is not the same as having the device send them to the CPU. We
> have VLAN filters as well. Allowing VID X to ingress does not mean that
> we trap each packet with this VID to CPU.
/Ilias