Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 16:59:30 +0200
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To:     Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>
Cc:     razor@blackwall.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 1/4] net: bridge: add fdb flag to extent
 locked port feature
Message-ID: <YjNM0ugG2dcZSD2r@shredder>
References: <20220317093902.1305816-1-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <20220317093902.1305816-2-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <YjM7Iwx4MDdGEHFA@shredder>
 <86ilsciqfh.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <86ilsciqfh.fsf@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 03:50:26PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
> On tor, mar 17, 2022 at 15:44, Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 10:38:59AM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
> >> Add an intermediate state for clients behind a locked port to allow for
> >> possible opening of the port for said clients. This feature corresponds
> >> to the Mac-Auth and MAC Authentication Bypass (MAB) named features. The
> >> latter defined by Cisco.
> >> Only the kernel can set this FDB entry flag, while userspace can read
> >> the flag and remove it by deleting the FDB entry.
> >
> > Can you explain where this flag is rejected by the kernel?
> >
> Is it an effort to set the flag from iproute2 on adding a fdb entry?

I'm not sure what you are asking, but even if iproute2 can't set the
flag it doesn't mean the kernel shouldn't reject it

> 
> > Nik, it seems the bridge ignores 'NDA_FLAGS_EXT', but I think that for
> > new flags we should do a better job and reject unsupported
> > configurations. WDYT?
> >
> > The neighbour code will correctly reject the new flag due to
> > 'NTF_EXT_MASK'.