From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.148]) (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 5881A3A1E67; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 08:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775636710; cv=none; b=FhQCQP6drdBWfiRjlUV2L7zmPUZfvES6vZO8UwLHK060IeLeSmS7T6p9fCsSP5bh8YvNq/5Yrimf6w/2NhImxdgjkIbJf1QMTV2hva+7BAs28oCkpNPnEoBu+X5AtZBxjclokYH8wsPHaf+YPu/mAS9A79w818AaOFQip0PssVA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775636710; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MYsVuliKoeskedgLGX+ydNaCxpDmYE4muspSAQYsSHM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IICZwnvo0wQYuv0B7rkT8MBGh5lnsGMxY9p+84idSjJKVaJMZ8MNPArltOmoAH4mb9xsga5p6TYDD4PdVElW7nQuEFm2/A6eiOGc99nC4+5X8bh/VCqiZ5sxscTFE56uncUU96WCeN8OptEQrcaaFCNSqsxAN3hCoVS04JdyF34= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b=jC7gDana; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=ngr0rp/b; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.148 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=queasysnail.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=queasysnail.net header.i=@queasysnail.net header.b="jC7gDana"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="ngr0rp/b" Received: from phl-compute-06.internal (phl-compute-06.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89E71D0003A; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 04:25:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-06.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 08 Apr 2026 04:25:06 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=queasysnail.net; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1775636705; x= 1775723105; bh=bLVRMkiIK8Nf8+Lr2yPv9kdpziO/G9ty43AaymTwsF4=; b=j C7gDanaiLbLtQjX/EE7XqSVybZEaeyF8dbFJDPR6mFDlhenqbT4K9wIIeKq4rS1l ek8Qlyddc7oX1asNmxEDyRIJ8Lzz+xMK+NQ9ptnA5r97xLqNbIZOUUGToZtSclKi bECp7XHcMHP+UX5kWgBEfr/0Zqt+X/cm6PJkR1MFPFeyHA/WjlTPZ7+1JIPpW5Ts YyKvMnZBz3t2PoJR1kqejfsOD3OgUA2rpv1yjxDp0nq0TUqvGvptAIXlosw6XhWZ j2R56YHtOI+6YZ6oMBrv5VqpDIDdZwGj1CueSvVmnYazzY3ePGsmA8Ry1W1Erl4/ nw5xwAj+isOJMMNqS1tpQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1775636705; x=1775723105; bh=bLVRMkiIK8Nf8+Lr2yPv9kdpziO/G9ty43A aymTwsF4=; b=ngr0rp/bYoNaDiyJSGMJW0YhlgkjL7nbYY2fVIekBbArY7oSJu6 eL9QoCosXNXimEZvzZ1OJ9FOJwq7kJR6lCneLgObxg5WOhnbHD5imkPkcSJkumzS 4C+uPVBnbiPMBW27WoaJ78VncQfVaV+aX4jFfiAWCiyjJOhhPs8sQPIAztG7t2bZ ZA3+zkmXClE1sDxv/0KQH/jkrnyP6FcIWWog8JV2un4AS4EMxFfc3ocFi833u12U EAduqke32bJVD3p3SvHXAJgPhkds1dMffdZ+4BgY6e7zoDpky3aq0Hk92gQDnHfU eQhB5lDV9ymHokkjvHnyXRTsd4W1Y3vRmbw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefhedrtddtgddvfedtkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjug hrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttdejnecuhfhrohhmpefurggsrhhinhgr ucffuhgsrhhotggruceoshgusehquhgvrghshihsnhgrihhlrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpeeuhffhfffgfffhfeeuiedugedtfefhkeegteehgeehieffgfeuvdeuffef gfduffenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hsugesqhhuvggrshihshhnrghilhdrnhgvthdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddvpdhmohgu vgepshhmthhpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopegtrhgrthhiuhesnhhvihguihgrrdgtohhmpd hrtghpthhtohepphgrsggvnhhisehrvgguhhgrthdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopegrnhgu rhgvfidonhgvthguvghvsehluhhnnhdrtghhpdhrtghpthhtohepuggrvhgvmhesuggrvh gvmhhlohhfthdrnhgvthdprhgtphhtthhopehlihhnuhigqdhkshgvlhhfthgvshhtsehv ghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepughtrghtuhhlvggrsehnvhhiug hirgdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehshhhurghhsehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrghdprhgtphht thhopehsughfsehfohhmihgthhgvvhdrmhgvpdhrtghpthhtohepkhhusggrsehkvghrnh gvlhdrohhrgh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i934648bf:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 8 Apr 2026 04:25:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 10:25:00 +0200 From: Sabrina Dubroca To: Cosmin Ratiu Cc: "pabeni@redhat.com" , "andrew+netdev@lunn.ch" , "davem@davemloft.net" , "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" , Dragos Tatulea , "shuah@kernel.org" , "sdf@fomichev.me" , "kuba@kernel.org" , "horms@kernel.org" , "edumazet@google.com" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH net v6 4/4] macsec: Support VLAN-filtering lower devices Message-ID: References: <20260330130130.989236-1-cratiu@nvidia.com> <20260330130130.989236-5-cratiu@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 2026-04-07, 15:07:47 +0000, Cosmin Ratiu wrote: > On Thu, 2026-04-02 at 16:48 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > If this happens on a real device, the VLAN filters will be broken. > > I'm > > not sure what the right behavior would be: > > > > 1. reject the request to enable offload > > 2. switch to promiscuous mode > > I implemented and tested option 1. In the unlikely scenario adding VLAN > filters prevents offloading How unlikely is it? Resource allocation, talking to HW, device limits, anything else that could fail? > , it's better for the driver to be explicit > and let the user turn on promisc mode themselves. Keeping track of > whether VLAN filters failed and promisc was used as a fallback adds > some extra complexity. If it's indeed (very) unlikely, sure. There's still a bit of a regression/change of behavior for users compared to before the IFF_UNICAST_FLT patch, but I think we can wait until someone complains, and then add the tracking if that happens. > What would be the point of IFF_UNICAST_FLT then? The point is that this would just be a fallback. > Please let me know if you agree with this approach, so I can send v8 > with it. If you can confirm it's on the "very unlikely" side, yes, this approach sounds ok. Thanks. > > OTOH maybe we don't need to care, since __netdev_update_features also > > (kind of) ignores those errors: > > [...] > > Well, in this case we have the chance to do something nicer (even > proper error message back to the user via extack) for a small (That reminds me I have a branch of "macsec: add extack to X" patches I still need to polish and submit. I don't think I'll get to it before the merge window opens, I'll rebase on top of your changes.) > complexity cost. Perhaps the VLAN filter handling could be improved > separately. I'm not sure if this would be an "improvement to VLAN filter handling" or a "(breaking) change of user-visible behavior". Probably improvement. Or maybe it's "unlikely enough" that nobody has ever cared. -- Sabrina