Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
From:   Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>,
        Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@gmail.com>, razor@blackwall.org
Cc:     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>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
        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
In-Reply-To: <YjM7Iwx4MDdGEHFA@shredder>
References: <20220317093902.1305816-1-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <20220317093902.1305816-2-schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>
 <YjM7Iwx4MDdGEHFA@shredder>
Date:   Thu, 17 Mar 2022 15:50:26 +0100
Message-ID: <86ilsciqfh.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

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?

> 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'.