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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:49:03 -0800 From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Murali Krishna Policharla <murali.policharla@...adcom.com>, Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>, "open list:BROADCOM SYSTEMPORT ETHERNET DRIVER" <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: systemport: set dev->max_mtu to UMAC_MAX_MTU_SIZE On 12/18/2020 1:17 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>>>>> SYSTEMPORT Lite does not actually validate the frame length, so setting >>>>>>> a maximum number to the buffer size we allocate could work, but I don't >>>>>>> see a reason to differentiate the two types of MACs here. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if the Lite doesn't validate the frame length, then shouldn't it >>>>>> report a max_mtu equal to the max_mtu of the attached DSA switch, plus >>>>>> the Broadcom tag length? Doesn't the b53 driver support jumbo frames? >>>>> >>>>> And how would I do that without create a horrible layering violation in >>>>> either the systemport driver or DSA? Yes the b53 driver supports jumbo >>>>> frames. >>>> >>>> Sorry, I don't understand where is the layering violation (maybe it doesn't >>>> help me either that I'm not familiar with Broadcom architectures). >>>> >>>> Is the SYSTEMPORT Lite always used as a DSA master, or could it also be >>>> used standalone? What would be the issue with hardcoding a max_mtu value >>>> which is large enough for b53 to use jumbo frames? >>> >>> SYSTEMPORT Lite is always used as a DSA master AFAICT given its GMII >>> Integration Block (GIB) was specifically designed with another MAC and >>> particularly that of a switch on the other side. >>> >>> The layering violation I am concerned with is that we do not know ahead >>> of time which b53 switch we are going to be interfaced with, and they >>> have various limitations on the sizes they support. Right now b53 only >>> concerns itself with returning JMS_MAX_SIZE, but I am fairly positive >>> this needs fixing given the existing switches supported by the driver. >> >> Maybe we don't need to over-engineer this. As long as you report a large >> enough max_mtu in the SYSTEMPORT Lite driver to accomodate for all >> possible revisions of embedded switches, and the max_mtu of the switch >> itself is still accurate and representative of the switch revision limits, >> I think that's good enough. > > I suppose that is fair, v2 coming, thanks! I was going to issue a v2 for this patch, but given that we don't allocate buffers larger than 2KiB and there is really no need to implement ndo_change_mtu(), is there really a point not to use UMAC_MAX_MTU_SIZE for both variants of the SYSTEMPORT MAC? -- Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists