netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 2/7] net: dsa: Add DSA driver for Hirschmann Hellcreek switches

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]

Date:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:56:22 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Kamil Alkhouri <kamil.alkhouri@...offenburg.de>,
        ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 2/7] net: dsa: Add DSA driver for Hirschmann
 Hellcreek switches

On 10/16/20 8:43 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 02:11:06PM +0200, Kurt Kanzenbach wrote:
>> When VLAN awareness is disabled, the packet is still classified with the
>> pvid. But, later all rules regarding VLANs (except for the PCP field)
>> are ignored then. So, the programmed pvid doesn't matter in this case.
> 
> Ok, clear now.
> 
>> The only way to implement the non-filtering bridge behavior is this
>> flag. However, this has some more implications. For instance when
>> there's a non filtering bridge, then standalone mode doesn't work
>> anymore due to the VLAN unawareness. This is not a problem at the
>> moment, because there are only two ports. But, later when there are more
>> ports, then having two ports in a non-filtering bridge and one in
>> standalone mode doesn't work. That's another limitation that needs to be
>> considered when adding more ports later on.
> 
> Well, then you have feedback to bring to the hardware engineers when
> switches with more than 2 user ports will be instantiated.
> 
>> Besides that problem everything else seem to work now in accordance to
>> the expected Linux behavior with roper restrictions in place.
> 
> Ok, that's great.

I probably missed parts of this long discussion, but for this generation
of switches, does that mean that you will only allow a bridge with
vlan_filtering=1 to be configured and also refuse toggling of
vlan_filtering at run time?
-- 
Florian