netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/3] net: dsa: rzn1-a5psw: add support for .port_bridge

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, 11 Aug 2023 13:03:07 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: alexis.lothore@...tlin.com
Cc: Clément Leger <clement@...ment-leger.fr>,
	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>,
	linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
	Milan Stevanovic <milan.stevanovic@...com>,
	Jimmy Lalande <jimmy.lalande@...com>,
	Pascal Eberhard <pascal.eberhard@...com>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/3] net: dsa: rzn1-a5psw: add support for
 .port_bridge_flags

Hi Alexis,

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:36:50AM +0200, alexis.lothore@...tlin.com wrote:
> +	if (flags.mask & BR_FLOOD) {
> +		val = flags.val & BR_FLOOD ? BIT(port) : 0;
> +		a5psw_reg_rmw(a5psw, A5PSW_UCAST_DEF_MASK, BIT(port), val);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (flags.mask & BR_MCAST_FLOOD) {
> +		val = flags.val & BR_MCAST_FLOOD ? BIT(port) : 0;
> +		a5psw_reg_rmw(a5psw, A5PSW_MCAST_DEF_MASK, BIT(port), val);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (flags.mask & BR_BCAST_FLOOD) {
> +		val = flags.val & BR_BCAST_FLOOD ? BIT(port) : 0;
> +		a5psw_reg_rmw(a5psw, A5PSW_BCAST_DEF_MASK, BIT(port), val);
> +	}

These 3 port masks will only do what you expect while the bridge has
vlan_filtering=0, correct? When vlan_filtering=1, packets classified to
a VLAN which don't hit any FDB entry will be always flooded to all ports
in that VLAN, correct?

Maybe you could restrict transitions to flooding disabled on ports with
vlan_filtering 1, and restrict transitions to vlan_filtering 1 on ports
with flooding disabled. Or at least add some comments about the
limitations. I wouldn't want subtle incompatibilities between the
hardware design and Linux' expectations to go under the radar like this.