From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 50E0482A72 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 8B44C82423 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=Nvidia.com; s=selector2; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=m8rwMMTB9zTQaWTOtnzc6WEKrUXFseeLrjt7qPp2zI8=; b=KKJrCiC3TQSixBgA5loHXq8CJWVunXRZzYVlxe1ZRuxMs8oHxtKjKE85jwrTerVA3U5E5uD8DbYAqGmUp1w1NBmOFx1OjkwXpwHQw0E+ZgffxdKubm24i6db3oAVOvJEYBBJl3RBNNpuFpyzznPWxQVBXF4qvevx3c9P72kk7pS4GLyM2VI77TL6+CbRgozSuYatkFOV08/0PxI7OBSQv70wqh2YbjncEfkPcrQqX+nn0QBp8/UTPuJWmHfOcPmaSwlSPn4f4xSVaiUAgEXAbs1RIZE9Os/d//SbM6R8RuEoKHUBWYrg3rIWkIEpwhxG86Prbm6joYYM5i74MSpSqg== Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:52:28 +0300 From: Ido Schimmel Message-ID: References: <20220826114538.705433-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com> <20220826114538.705433-2-netdev@kapio-technology.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH v5 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: add locked entry fdb flag to extend locked port feature List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: netdev@kapio-technology.com Cc: Andrew Lunn , Alexandre Belloni , Nikolay Aleksandrov , Kurt Kanzenbach , Eric Dumazet , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, Shuah Khan , Ivan Vecera , Florian Fainelli , Daniel Borkmann , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Roopa Prabhu , kuba@kernel.org, Paolo Abeni , Vivien Didelot , Woojung Huh , Landen Chao , Jiri Pirko , Christian Marangi , Hauke Mehrtens , Sean Wang , DENG Qingfang , Claudiu Manoil , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, Matthias Brugger , Yuwei Wang , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, Vladimir Oltean , davem@davemloft.net On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 12:23:30PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote: > On 2022-08-27 17:19, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:45:33PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: > > > > > > nbp_switchdev_frame_mark(p, skb); > > > @@ -943,6 +946,10 @@ static int br_setport(struct net_bridge_port > > > *p, struct nlattr *tb[], > > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_NEIGH_SUPPRESS, > > > BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS); > > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_ISOLATED, BR_ISOLATED); > > > br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_LOCKED, BR_PORT_LOCKED); > > > + br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_MAB, BR_PORT_MAB); > > > + > > > + if (!(p->flags & BR_PORT_LOCKED)) > > > + p->flags &= ~BR_PORT_MAB; > > The reason for this is that I wanted it to be so that if you have MAB > enabled (and locked of course) and unlock the port, it will automatically > clear both flags instead of having to first disable MAB and then unlock the > port. User space can just do: # bridge link set dev swp1 locked off mab off I prefer not to push such logic into the kernel and instead fail explicitly. I won't argue if more people are in favor.