netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: dsa: b53: Do not force tagging on CPU port VLANs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:36:55 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Hagan <mnhagan88@...il.com>,
        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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: dsa: b53: Do not force tagging on CPU
 port VLANs



On 6/7/2021 3:31 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/7/2021 3:22 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 03:08:42PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>> Commit ca8931948344 ("net: dsa: b53: Keep CPU port as tagged in all
>>> VLANs") forced the CPU port to be always tagged in any VLAN membership.
>>> This was necessary back then because we did not support Broadcom tags
>>> for all configurations so the only way to differentiate tagged and
>>> untagged traffic while DSA_TAG_PROTO_NONE was used was to force the CPU
>>> port into being always tagged.
>>>
>>> This is not necessary anymore since 8fab459e69ab ("net: dsa: b53: Enable
>>> Broadcom tags for 531x5/539x families") and we can simply program what
>>> we are being told now, regardless of the port being CPU or user-facing.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Matthew Hagan <mnhagan88@...il.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
>>> index 3ca6b394dd5f..56e3b42ec28c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c
>>> @@ -1477,7 +1477,7 @@ int b53_vlan_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>>>  		untagged = true;
>>>  
>>>  	vl->members |= BIT(port);
>>> -	if (untagged && !dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port))
>>> +	if (untagged)
>>>  		vl->untag |= BIT(port);
>>>  	else
>>>  		vl->untag &= ~BIT(port);
>>> @@ -1514,7 +1514,7 @@ int b53_vlan_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>>>  	if (pvid == vlan->vid)
>>>  		pvid = b53_default_pvid(dev);
>>>  
>>> -	if (untagged && !dsa_is_cpu_port(ds, port))
>>> +	if (untagged)
>>>  		vl->untag &= ~(BIT(port));
>>>  
>>>  	b53_set_vlan_entry(dev, vlan->vid, vl);
>>> -- 
>>> 2.25.1
>>>
>>
>> Don't you want to keep this functionality for BCM5325 / BCM5365 and
>> such, which still use DSA_TAG_PROTO_NONE?
> 
> Humm, in premise yes, however I am debating removing support for
> 5325/5365 entirely, nobody that I know of has even been trying to get
> those devices to work with that driver.

On second thought, we just need to have those devices return
DSA_TAG_PROTO_BRCM_LEGACY which is what they use, there does appear to
be a couple of users, including myself, I had not realized that the
device I was using used a 5325 (thought it was a 53125). V2 coming.
-- 
Florian