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, 21 Jul 2022 14:59:35 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     netdev@kapio-technology.com
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, 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>,
        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>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry
 flag to drivers
Message-ID: <20220721115935.5ctsbtoojtoxxubi@skbuf>
References: <20220708091550.2qcu3tyqkhgiudjg@skbuf>
 <e3ea3c0d72c2417430e601a150c7f0dd@kapio-technology.com>
 <20220708115624.rrjzjtidlhcqczjv@skbuf>
 <723e2995314b41ff323272536ef27341@kapio-technology.com>
 <YsqPWK67U0+Iw2Ru@shredder>
 <d3f674dc6b4f92f2fda3601685c78ced@kapio-technology.com>
 <Ys69DiAwT0Md+6ai@shredder>
 <648ba6718813bf76e7b973150b73f028@kapio-technology.com>
 <YtQosZV0exwyH6qo@shredder>
 <4500e01ec4e2f34a8bbb58ac9b657a40@kapio-technology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4500e01ec4e2f34a8bbb58ac9b657a40@kapio-technology.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 05:53:22PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote:
> > 3. What happens to packets with a DA matching the zero-DPV entry, are
> > they also discarded in hardware? If so, here we differ from the bridge
> > driver implementation where such packets will be forwarded according to
> > the locked entry and egress the locked port
> 
> I understand that egress will follow what is setup with regard to UC, MC and
> BC, though I haven't tested that. But no replies will get through of course
> as long as the port hasn't been opened for the iface behind the locked port.

Here, should we be rather fixing the software bridge, if the current
behavior is to forward packets towards locked FDB entries?