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:   Fri, 1 Jul 2022 18:27:00 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Hans S <schultz.hans@gmail.com>,
        Hans Schultz <hans@kapio-technology.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.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>,
        Hans Schultz <schultz.hans+netdev@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/1] net: bridge: ensure that link-local
 traffic cannot unlock a locked port
Message-ID: <20220701152700.sf2h6wbxx6dgll7a@skbuf>
References: <20220630111634.610320-1-hans@kapio-technology.com>
 <Yr2LFI1dx6Oc7QBo@shredder>
 <CAKUejP6LTFuw7d_1C18VvxXDuYaboD-PvSkk_ANSFjjfhyDGkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yr778K/7L7Wqwws2@shredder>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yr778K/7L7Wqwws2@shredder>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 04:51:44PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 09:47:24AM +0200, Hans S wrote:
> > One question though... wouldn't it be an issue that the mentioned
> > option setting is bridge wide, while the patch applies a per-port
> > effect?
> 
> Why would it be an issue? To me, the bigger issue is changing the
> semantics of "locked" in 5.20 compared to previous kernels.
> 
> What is even the use case for enabling learning when the port is locked?
> In current kernels, only SAs from link local traffic will be learned,
> but with this patch, nothing will be learned. So why enable learning in
> the first place? As an administrator, I mark a port as "locked" so that
> only traffic with SAs that I configured will be allowed. Enabling
> learning when the port is locked seems to defeat the purpose?

I think if learning on a locked port doesn't make sense, the bridge
should just reject that configuration.