netdev - [PATCH net-next 2/7] net: mscc: ocelot: don't reset the pvid to 0 when deleting it

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: <20201031102916.667619-3-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Date:   Sat, 31 Oct 2020 12:29:11 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next 2/7] net: mscc: ocelot: don't reset the pvid to 0 when deleting it

I have no idea why this code is here, but I have 2 hypotheses:

1.
A desperate attempt to keep untagged traffic working when the bridge
deletes the pvid on a port.

There was a fairly okay discussion here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CA+h21hrRMrLH-RjBGhEJSTZd6_QPRSd3RkVRQF-wNKkrgKcRSA@mail.gmail.com/#t
which established that in vlan_filtering=1 mode, the absence of a pvid
should denote that the ingress port should drop untagged and priority
tagged traffic. While in vlan_filtering=0 mode, nothing should change.

So in vlan_filtering=1 mode, we should simply let things happen, and not
attempt to save the day. And in vlan_filtering=0 mode, the pvid is 0
anyway, no need to do anything.

2.
The driver encodes the native VLAN (ocelot_port->vid) value of 0 as
special, meaning "not valid". There are checks based on that. But there
are no such checks for the ocelot_port->pvid value of 0. In fact, that's
a perfectly valid value, which is used in standalone mode. Maybe there
was some confusion and the author thought that 0 means "invalid" here as
well.

In conclusion, delete the code*.

*in fact we'll add it back later, in a slightly different form, but for
an entirely different reason than the one for which this exists now.

Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c | 4 ----
 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c
index bc5b15d7bce7..ae25a79bf907 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mscc/ocelot.c
@@ -293,10 +293,6 @@ int ocelot_vlan_del(struct ocelot *ocelot, int port, u16 vid)
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;

-	/* Ingress */
-	if (ocelot_port->pvid == vid)
-		ocelot_port_set_pvid(ocelot, port, 0);
-
 	/* Egress */
 	if (ocelot_port->vid == vid)
 		ocelot_port_set_native_vlan(ocelot, port, 0);
-- 
2.25.1