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  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:   Wed, 8 Apr 2020 23:10:53 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: Changing devlink port flavor dynamically for DSA

On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 23:05, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/8/2020 12:51 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > Hi Florian,
> >
> > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 23:42, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> On a BCM7278 system, we have two ports of the switch: 5 and 8, that
> >> connect to separate Ethernet MACs that the host/CPU can control. In
> >> premise they are both interchangeable because the switch supports
> >> configuring the management port to be either 5 or 8 and the Ethernet
> >> MACs are two identical instances.
> >>
> >> The Ethernet MACs are scheduled differently across the memory controller
> >> (they have different bandwidth and priority allocations) so it is
> >> desirable to select an Ethernet MAC capable of sustaining bandwidth and
> >> latency for host networking. Our current (in the downstream kernel) use
> >> case is to expose port 5 solely as a control end-point to the user and
> >> leave it to the user how they wish to use the Ethernet MAC behind port
> >> 5. Some customers use it to bridge Wi-Fi traffic, some simply keep it
> >> disabled. Port 5 of that switch does not make use of Broadcom tags in
> >> that case, since ARL-based forwarding works just fine.
> >>
> >> The current Device Tree representation that we have for that system
> >> makes it possible for either port to be elected as the CPU port from a
> >> DSA perspective as they both have an "ethernet" phandle property that
> >> points to the appropriate Ethernet MAC node, because of that the DSA
> >> framework treats them as CPU ports.
> >>
> >> My current line of thinking is to permit a port to be configured as
> >> either "cpu" or "user" flavor and do that through devlink. This can
> >> create some challenges but hopefully this also paves the way for finally
> >> supporting "multi-CPU port" configurations. I am thinking something like
> >> this would be how I would like it to be configured:
> >>
> >> # First configure port 8 as the new CPU port
> >> devlink port set pci/0000:01:00.0/8 type cpu
> >> # Now unmap port 5 from being a CPU port
> >> devlink port set pci/0000:01:00.0/1 type eth
> >>
> >> and this would do a simple "swap" of all user ports being now associated
> >> with port 8, and no longer with port 5, thus permitting port 5 from
> >> becoming a standard user port. Or maybe, we need to do this as an atomic
> >> operation in order to avoid a switch being configured with no CPU port
> >> anymore, so something like this instead:
> >>
> >> devlink port set pci/0000:01:00.0/5 type eth mgmt pci/0000:01:00.0/8
> >>
> >> The latter could also be used to define groups of ports within a switch
> >> that has multiple CPU ports, e.g.:
> >>
> >> # Ports 1 through 4 "bound" to CPU port 5:
> >>
> >> for i in $(seq 0 3)
> >> do
> >>         devlink port set pci/0000:01:00.0/$i type eth mgmt pci/0000:01:00.0/5
> >> done
> >>
> >> # Ports 7 bound to CPU port 8:
> >>
> >> devlink port set pci/0000:01:00.0/1 type eth mgmt pci/0000:01:00.0/8
> >>
> >> Let me know what you think!
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> Florian
> >
> > What is missing from your argumentation is what would the new devlink
> > mechanism of changing the CPU port bring for your particular use case.
> > I mean you can already remove the "ethernet" device tree property from
> > port 5 and end up exactly with the configuration that you want, no?
>
> That's what I do in our downstream tree for now, should I submit this
> upstream? I doubt it would be accepted.
> --
> Florian

This is exactly what we do for the NXP LS1028A (ocelot/felix driver),
where we enable just one of the 2 CPU ports by default (and the other
one, just as a simple user port in the very few situations that
require it):
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-ls1028a.dtsi#L943
Although to be fair, for LS1028A we can't even dream of enabling DSA
tagging on both CPU ports at the same time, since there is a hardware
limitation in place that only a single port may carry DSA tags at any
given moment in time.

-Vladimir

Powered by blists - more mailing lists