netdev - Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 0/6] Add support for qca8k mdio rw in Ethernet packet

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]

Message-ID: <20211208004051.bx5u7rnpxxt2yqwc@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 02:40:51 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 0/6] Add support for qca8k mdio rw in
 Ethernet packet

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 02:04:32AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 01:47:36AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > 2) is harder. But as far as i know, we have an 1:N setup.  One switch
> > > driver can use N tag drivers. So we need the switch driver to be sure
> > > the tag driver is what it expects. We keep the shared state in the tag
> > > driver, so it always has valid data, but when the switch driver wants
> > > to get a pointer to it, it needs to pass a enum dsa_tag_protocol and
> > > if it does not match, the core should return -EINVAL or similar.
> > 
> > In my proposal, the tagger will allocate the memory from its side of the
> > ->connect() call. So regardless of whether the switch driver side
> > connects or not, the memory inside dp->priv is there for the tagger to
> > use. The switch can access it or it can ignore it.
> 
> I don't think I actually said something useful here.
> 
> The goal would be to minimize use of dp->priv inside the switch driver,
> outside of the actual ->connect() / ->disconnect() calls.
> For example, in the felix driver which supports two tagging protocol
> drivers, I think these two methods would be enough, and they would
> replace the current felix_port_setup_tagger_data() and
> felix_port_teardown_tagger_data() calls.
> 
> An additional benefit would be that in ->connect() and ->disconnect() we
> get the actual tagging protocol in use. Currently the felix driver lacks
> there, because felix_port_setup_tagger_data() just sets dp->priv up
> unconditionally for the ocelot-8021q tagging protocol (luckily the
> normal ocelot tagger doesn't need dp->priv).
> 
> In sja1105 the story is a bit longer, but I believe that can also be
> cleaned up to stay within the confines of ->connect()/->disconnect().
> 
> So I guess we just need to be careful and push back against dubious use
> during review.

I've started working on a prototype for converting sja1105 to this model.
It should be clearer to me by tomorrow whether there is anything missing
from this proposal.