netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: Delete the VID from the upstream port as well

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: <20190820233026.GC21067@t480s.localdomain>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 23:30:26 -0400
From:   Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/6] net: dsa: Delete the VID from the upstream
 port as well

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 01:09:39 +0300, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> I mean I made an argument already for the hack in 4/6 ("Don't program
> the VLAN as pvid on the upstream port"). If the hack gets accepted
> like that, I have no further need of any change in the implicit VLAN
> configuration. But it's still a hack, so in that sense it would be
> nicer to not need it and have a better amount of control.

How come you simply cannot ignore the PVID flag for the CPU port in the
driver directly, as mv88e6xxx does in preference of the Marvell specific
"unmodified" mode? What PVID are you programming on the CPU port already?


Thanks,

	Vivien