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:   Mon, 12 Dec 2022 15:27:12 +0100
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
CC:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.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: <20221212142712.majhp4yifg72y3b2@soft-dev3-1>
References: <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>
 <20221209150332.79a921fd@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221209150332.79a921fd@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk

The 12/09/2022 15:03, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> 
> 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?

Yes, we would like to do something like this.

-- 
/Horatiu