netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for bridge flags

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:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:10:16 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: add support for
 bridge flags

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:04:44PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:08:11 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > Having these as separate functions means that we would then need
> > additional complexity in mv88e6xxx to store the per-port flooding state,
> > so we can do this:
> > 
> >         reg &= ~MV88E6352_PORT_CTL0_EGRESS_FLOODS_MASK;
> > 
> >         if (unicast && multicast)
> >                 reg |= MV88E6352_PORT_CTL0_EGRESS_FLOODS_ALL_UNKNOWN_DA;
> >         else if (unicast)
> >                 reg |= MV88E6352_PORT_CTL0_EGRESS_FLOODS_NO_UNKNOWN_MC_DA;
> >         else if (multicast)
> >                 reg |= MV88E6352_PORT_CTL0_EGRESS_FLOODS_NO_UNKNOWN_UC_DA;
> >         else
> >                 reg |= MV88E6352_PORT_CTL0_EGRESS_FLOODS_NO_UNKNOWN_DA;
> > 
> > for some of the switches.  It looks to me like mv88e6xxx would prefer
> > having at least both the unicast and multicast flags together.
> > 
> > Even without that, it means more code in mv88e6xxx to wrap each of
> > these calls between the DSA ops and the chip specific ops...
> 
> True, let's stick with ops->port_egress_flood(ds, port, bool uc, bool mc).
> I do not think that it is necessary to add support for BR_BCAST_FLOOD yet,
> we can extend this routine later if we need to.
> 
> Your dsa_port_bridge_flags() core function can notify the understood
> features. This will allow us to scope the support of the bridge flags in
> the core, and preventing the drivers to do that themselves.

So, if we have ops->port_egress_flood, then we tell bridge that
we support BR_FLOOD | BR_MCAST_FLOOD, irrespective of whether the
bridge actually supports both?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up