netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/4] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Add support for ICSSG switch firmware on AM654 PG2.0 EVM

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, 13 Sep 2023 14:19:57 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@...com>
Cc: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...nel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
	Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, srk@...com,
	r-gunasekaran@...com, Pekka Varis <p-varis@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 3/4] net: ti: icssg-prueth: Add support for
 ICSSG switch firmware on AM654 PG2.0 EVM

> As discussed on this thread, switching operation can work with the ICSSG
> switch firmware, without creating bridge. However without bridge only
> forwarding works. If we want the switch to consume packets bridge is
> required.

What packets will the switch consume? The only packets i can think of
are pause frames. Everything else get passed to the CPU.

You also need to think of what happens when a single switch port is
added to the bridge, and an external port, like a tun/tap device for a
VPN is added to the bridge.

For most switches, a port not being a member of a switch means the
port is pretty dumb and every frame is forwarded to the CPU. There are
however some switches which perform address learning as usual,
learning if an address is on the port, or on the CPU. Maybe you can
see if that is possible.

It might be you need your firmware people involved to produce a new
firmware version which combines both firmwares in one.

	 Andrew