netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] net: dsa: Don't program the VLAN as pvid on the upstream port

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: <20190820020709.GD975@t480s.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:07:09 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     f.fainelli@...il.com, andrew@...n.ch, idosch@...sch.org,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
        davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/6] net: dsa: Don't program the VLAN as pvid on
 the upstream port

On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:00:00 +0300, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> Commit b2f81d304cee ("net: dsa: add CPU and DSA ports as VLAN members")
> programs the VLAN from the bridge into the specified port as well as the
> upstream port, with the same set of flags.
> 
> Consider the typical case of installing pvid 1 on user port 1, pvid 2 on
> user port 2, etc. The upstream port would end up having a pvid equal to
> the last user port whose pvid was programmed from the bridge. Less than
> useful.
> 
> So just don't change the pvid of the upstream port and let it be
> whatever the driver set it internally to be.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
> ---
>  net/dsa/switch.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/dsa/switch.c b/net/dsa/switch.c
> index 84ab2336131e..02ccc53f1926 100644
> --- a/net/dsa/switch.c
> +++ b/net/dsa/switch.c
> @@ -239,17 +239,21 @@ dsa_switch_vlan_prepare_bitmap(struct dsa_switch *ds,
>  			       const struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan *vlan,
>  			       const unsigned long *bitmap)
>  {
> +	struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan v = *vlan;
>  	int port, err;
>  
>  	if (!ds->ops->port_vlan_prepare || !ds->ops->port_vlan_add)
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>  
>  	for_each_set_bit(port, bitmap, ds->num_ports) {
> -		err = dsa_port_vlan_check(ds, port, vlan);
> +		if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port) || dsa_is_dsa_port(ds, port))
> +			v.flags &= ~BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID;

So you keep the BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID flag cleared for all other ports that
come after any CPU or DSA port?

> +
> +		err = dsa_port_vlan_check(ds, port, &v);
>  		if (err)
>  			return err;
>  
> -		err = ds->ops->port_vlan_prepare(ds, port, vlan);
> +		err = ds->ops->port_vlan_prepare(ds, port, &v);
>  		if (err)
>  			return err;
>  	}
> @@ -262,10 +266,14 @@ dsa_switch_vlan_add_bitmap(struct dsa_switch *ds,
>  			   const struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan *vlan,
>  			   const unsigned long *bitmap)
>  {
> +	struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan v = *vlan;
>  	int port;
>  
> -	for_each_set_bit(port, bitmap, ds->num_ports)
> -		ds->ops->port_vlan_add(ds, port, vlan);
> +	for_each_set_bit(port, bitmap, ds->num_ports) {
> +		if (dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port) || dsa_is_dsa_port(ds, port))
> +			v.flags &= ~BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID;

Same here. Did you intend to initialize your switchdev_obj_port_vlan structure
_within_ the for_each_set_bit loop maybe?

> +		ds->ops->port_vlan_add(ds, port, &v);
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static int dsa_switch_vlan_add(struct dsa_switch *ds,

Do you even test your patches?