From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mxout70.expurgate.net (mxout70.expurgate.net [194.37.255.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 441BE19413D; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 13:32:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.37.255.70 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717767124; cv=none; b=lDnjOuxPeuMyh87CQ+qDoAwdNWBipa1KlWvEfyEJsvwklQSlBfm/qZiNbZnRKQ7sRlv9MiTtN6II9HVMR/HdTg1a+RgyGWWilSRUYwSTneT3WgHLdpu4/xtgThQMaUg9+/pqovkqhiOWTXbVsxc/Lt9MX1+6uuWxOWX1MOy8FMw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717767124; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jK1d3o1QAPsjxRL7F/RTi+01I3SDRcHu6QO1eAUSOe0=; h=MIME-Version:Content-Type:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To: References:Message-ID; b=tkS7k2f0pt5AFvTH2Sgck3OwHPvzOU6EQbg6WAxl5DjH6SY8GSF9wrcC8yx4qet7GBs0BIC1xnCxg2CjzHSYHYkiLMFhrYLrZpYmZf1iqn2JF/Tkp4dsMvEc5q9etoryA7XKL19Atv6SHdP2iG2b7ICR98ZGyL/mmuzxoehcBFk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dev.tdt.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev.tdt.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=194.37.255.70 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dev.tdt.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dev.tdt.de Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by relay.expurgate.net with smtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sFZhH-005xIM-G8; Fri, 07 Jun 2024 15:31:59 +0200 Received: from [195.243.126.94] (helo=securemail.tdt.de) by relay.expurgate.net with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sFZhG-00EM7R-UE; Fri, 07 Jun 2024 15:31:58 +0200 Received: from securemail.tdt.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by securemail.tdt.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F565240053; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:31:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.dev.tdt.de (unknown [10.2.4.42]) by securemail.tdt.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1974C240050; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:31:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.dev.tdt.de (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.dev.tdt.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D59A381D6; Fri, 7 Jun 2024 15:31:57 +0200 (CEST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 15:31:57 +0200 From: Martin Schiller To: Vladimir Oltean Cc: martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com, hauke@hauke-m.de, andrew@lunn.ch, f.fainelli@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 09/13] net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: Forbid gswip_add_single_port_br on the CPU port Organization: TDT AG In-Reply-To: <20240607112628.igcf6ytqe6wbmbq5@skbuf> References: <20240606085234.565551-1-ms@dev.tdt.de> <20240606085234.565551-10-ms@dev.tdt.de> <20240607112628.igcf6ytqe6wbmbq5@skbuf> Message-ID: X-Sender: ms@dev.tdt.de User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.17 X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-ID: 151534::1717767119-36129522-4EAB40DD/0/0 X-purgate: clean 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 >> >> 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 >> >> --- >> 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.