Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 00:27:54 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?UGF3ZcWC?= Dembicki <paweldembicki@gmail.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/8] net: dsa: vsc73xx: Add vlan filtering
Message-ID: <20231003212754.bbel76726dqyrtyn@skbuf>
References: <20230912122201.3752918-1-paweldembicki@gmail.com>
 <20230912122201.3752918-6-paweldembicki@gmail.com>
 <20230912161709.g34slexfaop6xp7w@skbuf>
 <CAJN1Kkwzwt++6GtrAnCbKzYto-uQECYZz5=N7bePqK9wsK2_+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230926235848.3uftpkj7m24qsord@skbuf>
 <CAJN1KkxcPzQ3-KCPdh1N6CGg7Foj=JbP3b2Kg=vqxpKOZumn8w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAJN1KkxcPzQ3-KCPdh1N6CGg7Foj=JbP3b2Kg=vqxpKOZumn8w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 11:14:55PM +0200, Paweł Dembicki wrote:
> Should I make a local copy of the quantity of egress untagged and
> tagged vlans per port to resolve this issue, shouldn't I?
> And then I check how many vlans are egress tagged or untagged for a
> properly restricted solution?

Yeah, I guess so. It is the same problem that ocelot_vlan_prepare()
tries to solve, and that counts ocelot_port_num_untagged_vlans() and
ocelot_port_num_tagged_vlans() indeed.

> I see another problem. Even if I return an error value, the untagged
> will be marked in 'bridge vlan' listing. I'm not sure how it should
> work in this case.

What error code are you returning, -EOPNOTSUPP I guess? That's
deliberately ignored by callers of br_switchdev_port_vlan_add(), because
it means "no one responded to the switchdev notifier, so the VLAN is not
offloaded". If you want to deny the configuration you need to return
something else, like -EBUSY.