netdev - Re: net: dsa: mv88e6xxx architecture

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <C52AE934-0FE9-48C0-A258-F6357E6BBCC2@padl.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 09:15:20 +1100
From: Luke Howard <lukeh@...l.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Kieran Tyrrell <kieran@...nda.com>, Max Hunter <max@...tershome.org>
Subject: Re: net: dsa: mv88e6xxx architecture

> Doesn't FDB/MDB imply you have a bridge? What about an isolated port
> which is not a member of a bridge, there is only local traffic?

I don’t believe local traffic is an issue (if it were, I imagine one could use cgroups to control which processes could send frames of a particular priority). (Kieran, feel free to correct me.)

What I’ve done in the current patch (behind a Kconfig option) is to assume that static FDB/MDB entries on MQPRIO ports are for AVB alone. But this may be incompatible with IGMP snooping, if that also results in the creation of static MDB entires.

Adding MQPRIO/CBS support without this admission control is definitely an option and perhaps a good first step, the proviso being that when bridging, SRP would not provide a guaranteed bandwidth reservation.