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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <7e4b58a75ece9cce4c841c33d7d66265@kapio-technology.com> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:04:25 +0200 From: netdev@...io-technology.com To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>, Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>, Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>, Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>, DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>, Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: add locked entry fdb flag to extend locked port feature On 2022-08-29 09:52, Ido Schimmel wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 12:23:30PM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com > wrote: >> On 2022-08-27 17:19, Ido Schimmel wrote: >> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:45:33PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: >> > > >> > > nbp_switchdev_frame_mark(p, skb); >> > > @@ -943,6 +946,10 @@ static int br_setport(struct net_bridge_port >> > > *p, struct nlattr *tb[], >> > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_NEIGH_SUPPRESS, >> > > BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS); >> > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_ISOLATED, BR_ISOLATED); >> > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_LOCKED, BR_PORT_LOCKED); >> > > + br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_MAB, BR_PORT_MAB); >> > > + >> > > + if (!(p->flags & BR_PORT_LOCKED)) >> > > + p->flags &= ~BR_PORT_MAB; >> >> The reason for this is that I wanted it to be so that if you have MAB >> enabled (and locked of course) and unlock the port, it will >> automatically >> clear both flags instead of having to first disable MAB and then >> unlock the >> port. > > User space can just do: > > # bridge link set dev swp1 locked off mab off > > I prefer not to push such logic into the kernel and instead fail > explicitly. I won't argue if more people are in favor. I shall do it as you suggest. It sounds fair. :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists