netdev - Segregating L2 forwarding domains with ocelot

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:36:12 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Joergen Andreasen <joergen.andreasen@...rochip.com>,
        "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Segregating L2 forwarding domains with ocelot

Hi Alex, Joergen, Allan,

Currently the ocelot driver rejects enslaving switch ports to more
than one bridge:

static int ocelot_port_bridge_join(struct ocelot_port *ocelot_port,
                   struct net_device *bridge)
{
    struct ocelot *ocelot = ocelot_port->ocelot;

    if (!ocelot->bridge_mask) {
        ocelot->hw_bridge_dev = bridge;
    } else {
        if (ocelot->hw_bridge_dev != bridge)
            /* This is adding the port to a second bridge, this is
             * unsupported */
            return -ENODEV;
    }

    ocelot->bridge_mask |= BIT(ocelot_port->chip_port);

    return 0;
}

I am wondering why the ocelot driver is writing the same
bridge_fwd_mask to all PGID_SRC[port] registers? Judging from the
reference manual description of PGID_SRC, the hardware should be able
of managing a forwarding matrix and not just a forwarding array?

Regards,
-Vladimir