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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Fri, 02 Dec 2022 12:06:17 +0100
From:   netdev@kapio-technology.com
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 2/2] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB
 implementation
In-Reply-To: <20221120150018.qupfa3flq6hoapgj@skbuf>
References: <20221112203748.68995-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20221112203748.68995-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20221112203748.68995-3-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20221112203748.68995-3-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20221115222312.lix6xpvddjbsmoac@skbuf>
 <6c77f91d096e7b1eeaa73cd546eb6825@kapio-technology.com>
 <20221120150018.qupfa3flq6hoapgj@skbuf>
User-Agent: Gigahost Webmail
Message-ID: <343cbf3d367e2a2d4e3ce09487f43615@kapio-technology.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-11-20 16:00, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:21:08AM +0100, netdev@kapio-technology.com 
> wrote:
>> I have something like this, using 'mvls vtu' from
>> https://github.com/wkz/mdio-tools:
>>  VID   FID  SID  P  Q  F  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  a
>>    0     0    0  y  -  -  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =
>>    1     2    0  -  -  -  u  u  u  u  u  u  u  u  u  u  =
>> 4095     1    0  -  -  -  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =
>> 
>> as a vtu table. I don't remember exactly the consequences, but I am 
>> quite
>> sure that fid=0 gave
>> incorrect handling, but there might be something that I have missed as 
>> to
>> other setups.
> 
> Can you please find out? There needs to be an answer as to why 
> something
> which shouldn't happen happens.

Hi Vladimir,
I haven't been able to reproduce the situation with fid=0, and it may be 
superfluous to check if fid has a non-zero value as the case of fid=0 in 
the miss violation handling is not valid on a bridged port, where I 
understand from consultation that the case fid=0 corresponds to a 
non-bridged port.

What I experienced then might have been from some previous bug at a 
time, but I don't know.

Should I remove the check or not?