netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/8] net: dsa: vsc73xx: add port_stp_state

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: <20230912154204.633wv564dih3p6we@skbuf>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 18:42:04 +0300
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To: Paweł Dembicki <paweldembicki@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	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>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/8] net: dsa: vsc73xx: add
 port_stp_state_set function

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 05:27:45PM +0200, Paweł Dembicki wrote:
> > To forward a packet between port A and port B, both of them must be in
> > BR_STATE_FORWARDING, not just A.
> >
> 
> In this patch bridges are unimplemented. Please look at 8/8 patch [0].
> 
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230912122201.3752918-9-paweldembicki@gmail.com/T/#u

Yes, but vsc73xx_port_stp_state_set() remains unchanged until the end.
What am I missing? In your implementation, nothing prevents port i
(which is in BR_STATE_FORWARDING) from forwarding packets towards a port j,
present in vsc->forward_map[i] & BIT(j), which is *not* in BR_STATE_FORWARDING.
If you don't have access to the STP protocol yet, you can put port j
down and it will go to the DISABLED state and you can confirm that other
ports in the bridge will still remain configured to forward to it.

> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/vitesse-vsc73xx.h b/drivers/net/dsa/vitesse-vsc73xx.h
> > > index f79d81ef24fb..224e284a5573 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/vitesse-vsc73xx.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/vitesse-vsc73xx.h
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> > >
> > >  /**
> > >   * struct vsc73xx - VSC73xx state container
> > > + * @forward_map: Forward table cache
> >
> > If you start describing the member fields, shouldn't all be described?
> > I think there will be kdoc warnings otherwise.
> >
> 
> Jakub in v1 series points kdoc warn in this case. I added a
> description to the field added by me. Should I prepare in the v4
> series a separate commit for other descriptions in this struct?

Yes, but please hold off posting it until I'm done reviewing this version.