netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] net: dsa: untag the bridge pvid from rx skbs

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: <20200923220121.phnctzovjkiw2qiz@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:01:21 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "olteanv@...il.com" <olteanv@...il.com>,
        "nikolay@...dia.com" <nikolay@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] net: dsa: untag the bridge pvid from rx
 skbs

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 02:51:09PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Speaking of that part of the code, I was also wondering whether you
> wanted this to be netdev_for_each_upper_dev_rcu(br, upper_dev, iter) and
> catch a bridge device upper as opposed to a switch port upper? Either
> way is fine and there are possibly use cases for either.

So, yeah, both use cases are valid, and I did in fact mean uppers of the
bridge, but now that you're raising the point, do we actually support
properly the use case with an 8021q upper of a bridged port? My
understanding is that this VLAN-tagged traffic should not be switched on
RX. So without some ACL rule on ingress that the driver must install, I
don't see how that can work properly.