netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] net: dsa: qca8k: limit user ports access to the first CPU port on setup

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, 28 Jul 2023 00:14:59 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Atin Bainada <hi@...nb.me>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 3/3] net: dsa: qca8k: limit user ports access to
 the first CPU port on setup

On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 09:10:56PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 04:18:51PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 05:30:58AM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > In preparation for multi-CPU support, set CPU port LOOKUP MEMBER outside
> > > the port loop and setup the LOOKUP MEMBER mask for user ports only to
> > > the first CPU port.
> > > 
> > > This is to handle flooding condition where every CPU port is set as
> > > target and prevent packet duplication for unknown frames from user ports.
> > > 
> > > Secondary CPU port LOOKUP MEMBER mask will be setup later when
> > > port_change_master will be implemented.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > 
> > This is kinda "net.git" material, in the sense that it fixes the current
> > driver behavior with device trees from the future, right?
> 
> This is not strictly a fix. The secondary CPU (if defined) doesn't have
> flood enabled so the switch won't forward packet. It's more of a
> cleanup/preparation from my point of view. What do you think?
> 
> -- 
> 	Ansuel

Ah, ok, if packets don't reach the second CPU port anyway then it's fine.