netdev - Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 00/10] Let switchdev drivers offload and unoffload bridge ports at their own convenience

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]

Message-ID: <YPfE0oEfwVe1u4rM@shredder>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 09:55:14 +0300
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Marek Behun <kabel@...ckhole.sk>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 00/10] Let switchdev drivers offload and
 unoffload bridge ports at their own convenience

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 07:47:18PM +0000, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 05:25:08PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > If you don't want to change the order, then at least make the
> > replay/cleanup optional and set it to 'false' for mlxsw. This should
> > mean that the only change in mlxsw should be adding calls to
> > switchdev_bridge_port_offload() / switchdev_bridge_port_unoffload() in
> > mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_create() / mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_destroy(),
> > respectively.
> 
> Is there any specific reason why you suggested me to move the
> switchdev_bridge_port_offload() call from the top-level
> mlxsw_sp_port_bridge_join() into mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_create()
> (and similarly, from _pre_bridge_leave to _destroy)?
> 
> Even if you don't support replays right now, you'd need to move a bunch
> of code around before you would get them to work. As far as I can see,
> mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_create() is a bit too early and
> mlxsw_sp_bridge_port_destroy() is a bit too late. The port needs to be
> fairly up and running to be able to process the switchdev notifiers at
> that stage.
> 
> Do you mind if I keep the hooks where they are, which is what I do for
> all drivers? I don't think I am missing to handle any case.

I want to avoid introducing unnecessary changes. I will do them when
needed.

Thanks