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, 9 Dec 2022 15:03:32 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>,
        Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>, Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, daniel.machon@microchip.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        lars.povlsen@microchip.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, richardcochran@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: lan966x: Add ptp trap rules
Message-ID: <20221209150332.79a921fd@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20221209152713.qmbnovdookrmzvkx@skbuf>
References: <20221209092904.asgka7zttvdtijub@soft-dev3-1>
        <c8b755672e20c223a83bc3cd4332f8cd@walle.cc>
        <20221209125857.yhsqt4nj5kmavhmc@soft-dev3-1>
        <20221209125611.m5cp3depjigs7452@skbuf>
        <a821d62e2ed2c6ec7b305f7d34abf0ba@walle.cc>
        <20221209142058.ww7aijhsr76y3h2t@soft-dev3-1>
        <20221209144328.m54ksmoeitmcjo5f@skbuf>
        <20221209145720.ahjmercylzqo5tla@soft-dev3-1>
        <20221209145637.nr6favnsofmwo45s@skbuf>
        <20221209153010.f4r577ilnlein77e@soft-dev3-1>
        <20221209152713.qmbnovdookrmzvkx@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 17:27:13 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > So for example, on a fresh started lan966x the user will add the following
> > rule:
> > tc filter add dev eth0 ingress chain 8000000 prio 1 handle 1 protocol
> > all flower skip_sw dst_mac 00:11:22:33:44:55/ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff action
> > trap action goto chain 8100000
> > 
> > He expects this rule not to be hit as there is no rule in chain 0. Now if
> > PTP is started and it would enable vcap, then suddenly this rule may be
> > hit.  
> 
> Is it too restrictive to only allow adding offloaded filters to a chain
> that has a valid goto towards it, coming (perhaps indirectly) from chain 0?

Right, we fumbled the review and let the chain oddness in. 
Until recently the driver worked without any rules in chain 0 :(

Maybe adding and offload of the rules can be separated?
Only actually add the rules to the HW once the goto chain rule 
has been added?