netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] net: dsa: loop: Support 4K VLANs

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: <585749fb-18fa-973b-57f2-05fd03bd9fdb@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:29:12 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] net: dsa: loop: Support 4K VLANs



On 8/3/2020 1:27 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 01:03:51PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Allocate a 4K array of VLANs instead of limiting ourselves to just 5
>> which is arbitrary.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/dsa/dsa_loop.c | 6 ++----
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/dsa_loop.c b/drivers/net/dsa/dsa_loop.c
>> index 4a57238cdfd8..6e97b44c6f3f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/dsa_loop.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/dsa_loop.c
>> @@ -48,12 +48,10 @@ struct dsa_loop_port {
>>  	u16 pvid;
>>  };
>>  
>> -#define DSA_LOOP_VLANS	5
>> -
>>  struct dsa_loop_priv {
>>  	struct mii_bus	*bus;
>>  	unsigned int	port_base;
>> -	struct dsa_loop_vlan vlans[DSA_LOOP_VLANS];
>> +	struct dsa_loop_vlan vlans[VLAN_N_VID];
>>  	struct net_device *netdev;
>>  	struct dsa_loop_port ports[DSA_MAX_PORTS];
> 
> That is 4K x (2 x u16) = 16K RAM. I suppose for a test driver which is
> never expected to be used in production, that is O.K.

I think so too, if we are worried we could switch to vmalloc() down the
road.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
> 
>     Andrew
> 

-- 
Florian