netdev - Re: [PATCH iwl-net 0/5] ice: LLDP support for VFs

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: <ZeDb8Dr8mBvov9fc@lzaremba-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:33:04 +0100
From: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mateusz Pacuszka
	<mateuszx.pacuszka@...el.com>, Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
	Lukasz Plachno <lukasz.plachno@...el.com>, Jakub Buchocki
	<jakubx.buchocki@...el.com>, Pawel Kaminski <pawel.kaminski@...el.com>,
	Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, Michal Swiatkowski
	<michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>, Mateusz Polchlopek
	<mateusz.polchlopek@...el.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, "Pawel
 Chmielewski" <pawel.chmielewski@...el.com>, Jesse Brandeburg
	<jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iwl-net 0/5] ice: LLDP support for VFs

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 07:28:13AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:20:05 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > But isn't it a matter of eswitch configuration? I mean, the user should
> > be free to configure filtering/forwarding of any packet, including LLDP
> > ones.
> 
> This is an LLDP agent which runs as part of the NIC FW, AFAIU, not about
> forwarding or filtering.
> 
> They already have the priv flag, so best to reuse that. If not possible
> we can explore options, but as Larysa mentioned herself in the cover
> letter sysfs is probably low on the preference list :(
>

FW agent is disabled NIC-wide, so only PF should be able to set such flag.

The lazy part of me likes the private flag direction, because just replacing 
sysfs entries with corresponding private flags would make patch look better
while not changing the implementation much.

I guess, treating it like a normal eswitch configuration would be ideal, but 
it would not be purely generic, as there is an added level of complexity because 
of FW Agent interactions.