netdev - Re: [PATCH 4.19.y] net: dsa: mt7530: disable learning on standalone ports

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:   Fri, 27 Aug 2021 12:19:23 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        "open list:MEDIATEK SWITCH DRIVER" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19.y] net: dsa: mt7530: disable learning on standalone
 ports

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:57:53PM +0800, DENG Qingfang wrote:
> Hi Sasha,
> 
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:29 PM Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org> wrote:
> > What's the reasoning behind:
> >
> > 1. Backporting this patch?
> 
> Standalone ports should have address learning disabled, according to
> the documentation:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v5.14-rc7/networking/dsa/dsa.html#bridge-layer
> dsa_switch_ops on 5.10 or earlier does not have .port_bridge_flags
> function so it has to be done differently.
> 
> I've identified an issue related to this.

What issue is that?  Where was it reported?

> > 2. A partial backport of this patch?
> 
> The other part does not actually fix anything.

Then why is it not ok to just take the whole thing?

When backporting not-identical-patches, something almost always goes
wrong, so we prefer to take the original commit when ever possible.

thanks,

greg k-h