[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a36d6891ce8e961c24987a424b6d7b66@kapio-technology.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2022 17:33:58 +0200
From: netdev@...io-technology.com
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry
flag to drivers
On 2022-08-11 13:28, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm talking about roaming, not forwarding. Let's say you have a locked
>> > entry with MAC X pointing to port Y. Now you get a packet with SMAC X
>> > from port Z which is unlocked. Will the FDB entry roam to port Z? I
>> > think it should, but at least in current implementation it seems that
>> > the "locked" flag will not be reset and having locked entries pointing
>> > to an unlocked port looks like a bug.
>> >
Yes, now I have tried to test with a case like this using the bridge and
have verified the locked entry pointing to an unlocked port, which I
agree seems to be a bug, which I will get fixed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists