netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 09/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Forbid gswip_add_single_port

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, 07 Jun 2024 15:31:57 +0200
From: Martin Schiller <ms@....tdt.de>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com, hauke@...ke-m.de, andrew@...n.ch,
 f.fainelli@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Forbid
 gswip_add_single_port_br on the CPU port

On 2024-06-07 13:26, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 10:52:30AM +0200, Martin Schiller wrote:
>> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
>> 
>> Calling gswip_add_single_port_br() with the CPU port would be a bug
>> because then only the CPU port could talk to itself. Add the CPU port 
>> to
>> the validation at the beginning of gswip_add_single_port_br().
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl 
>> <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c 
>> b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> index ee8296d5b901..d2195271ffe9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/lantiq_gswip.c
>> @@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ static int gswip_add_single_port_br(struct 
>> gswip_priv *priv, int port, bool add)
>>  	unsigned int max_ports = priv->hw_info->max_ports;
>>  	int err;
>> 
>> -	if (port >= max_ports) {
>> +	if (port >= max_ports || dsa_is_cpu_port(priv->ds, port)) {
>>  		dev_err(priv->dev, "single port for %i supported\n", port);
>>  		return -EIO;
>>  	}
>> --
>> 2.39.2
>> 
> 
> Isn't the new check effectively dead code?

As long as the dsa_switch_ops .port_bridge_join and .port_bridge_leave 
are not
executed for the cpu port, I agree with you.