[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c1123f1b242ea037867a5ec7130232f4@kapio-technology.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:55:15 +0200
From: netdev@...io-technology.com
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.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>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add test of
MAC-Auth Bypass to locked port tests
On 2022-08-29 09:40, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 02:00:29PM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com
> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-27 20:21, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > "locked on learning on" is counter intuitive and IMO very much a
>> > misconfiguration that we should have disallowed when the "locked" option
>> > was introduced. It is my understanding that the only reason we are even
>> > talking about it is because mv88e6xxx needs it for MAB for some reason.
>>
>> As the way mv88e6xxx implements "learning off" is to remove port
>> association
>> for ingress packets on a port, but that breaks many other things such
>> as
>> refreshing ATU entries and violation interrupts, so it is needed and
>> the
>> question is then what is the worst to have 'learning on' on a locked
>> port or
>> to have the locked port enabling learning in the driver silently?
>>
>> Opinions seem to differ. Note that even on locked ports without MAB,
>> port
>> association on ingress is still needed in future as I have a dynamic
>> ATU
>> patch set coming, that uses age out violation and hardware refreshing
>> to let
>> the hardware keep the dynamic entries as long as the authorized
>> station is
>> sending, but will age the entry out if the station keeps silent for
>> the
>> ageing time. But that patch set is dependent on this patch set, and I
>> don't
>> think I can send it before this is accepted...
>
> # bridge link set dev swp1 learning on locked on
> # bridge link set dev swp2 learning on locked on
As we must think in how most drivers work, which I am not knowledgeable
of, I think that it is probably the best to think of the way mv88e6xxx
works as an outlier.
If that is true, then I think the best option is to go with:
#bridge link set dev $swp1 learning off locked on
#bridge link set dev $swp2 learning off locked on
Then the cleanup side will just be:
#bridge link set dev $swp1 locked off
#bridge link set dev $swp2 locked off
The state 'learning off' is then consistent with the behavior of both
the bridge and driver after the cleanup.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists