netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/5] net: vlan: fix bridge binding behavior and add selftests

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:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:45:07 +0300
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sevinj Aghayeva <sevinj.aghayeva@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        aroulin@...dia.com, sbrivio@...hat.com, roopa@...dia.com,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 0/5] net: vlan: fix bridge binding behavior
 and add selftests

On 21/09/2022 02:29, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 12:16:26 +0300 Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> The set looks good to me, the bridge and vlan direct dependency is gone and
>> the new notification type is used for passing link type specific info.
> 
> IDK, vlan knows it's calling the bridge:
> 
> +	if ((vlan->flags ^ old_flags) & VLAN_FLAG_BRIDGE_BINDING &&
> +	    netif_is_bridge_master(vlan->real_dev)) {
> 

This one is more of an optimization so notifications are sent only when the bridge
is involved, it can be removed if other interested parties show up.

> bridge knows it's vlan calling:
> 
> +	if (is_vlan_dev(dev)) {
> +		br_vlan_device_event(dev, event, ptr);
> 
> going thru the generic NETDEV notifier seems odd.
> 
> If this is just to avoid the dependency we can perhaps add a stub 
> like net/ipv4/udp_tunnel_stub.c ?
> 

I suggested the notifier to be more generic and be able to re-use it for other link types although
I don't have other use cases in mind right now. Stubs are an alternative as long as they and
their lifetime are properly managed. I don't have a strong preference here so if you prefer
stubs I'm good.

>> If the others are ok with it I think you can send it as non-RFC, but I'd give it
>> a few more days at least. :)

Cheers,
 Nik