netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for unimplemented mrp state

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:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:27:36 +0000
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
CC:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: mrp: use stp state as substitute for
 unimplemented mrp state

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:20:36PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 01/18/2021 19:46, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:56:18PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > The reason was to stay away from STP, because you can't run these two
> > > protocols at the same time. Even though in SW, we reuse port's state.
> > > In our driver(which is not upstreamed), we currently implement
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE and just call the
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_STP_STATE.
> >
> > And isn't Rasmus's approach reasonable, in that it allows unmodified
> > switchdev drivers to offload MRP port states without creating
> > unnecessary code churn?
>
> I am sorry but I don't see this as the correct solution. In my opinion,
> I would prefer to have 3 extra lines in the driver and have a better
> view of what is happening. Than having 2 calls in the driver for
> different protocols.

I think the question boils down to: is a MRP-unaware driver expected to
work with the current bridge MRP code?

> If it is not a problem to have STP calls when you configure the MRP,
> then why not just remove SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_MRP_PORT_STATE?

Good question, why not?