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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:56:27 -0500
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
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

Hi Russell,

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:10:16 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > 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?

I would say so yes. If a driver implements port_egress_flood(), this means
its switch device supports both BR_FLOOD | BR_MCAST_FLOOD.

I have one concern though. The documentation of mcast_flood for bridge(8)
says that this flag "controls whether a given port will *be flooded* with
[unknown] multicast traffic". From this I understand allowing this port to
*receive* frames with unknown destination addresses. But with mv88e6xxx, we
program whether the port is allowed to egress a frame that has an unknown
destination address. Otherwise, it will not go out this port.

Am I mistaken? If I understood correctly, is it safe to assume it is the
same thing we are implementing here?


Thanks,

	Vivien

Powered by blists - more mailing lists