Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers

[netdev]

On 2022-08-23 09:24, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:13:54AM +0200, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> wrote:
> > On 2022-08-23 08:48, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:49:28AM +0200, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > > As I am not familiar with roaming in this context, I need to know
> > > > how the SW
> > > > bridge should behave in this case.
> > >
> >
> > > > In this case, is the roaming only between locked ports or does the
> > > > roaming include that the entry can move to a unlocked port, resulting
> > > > in the locked flag getting removed?
> > >
> > > Any two ports. If the "locked" entry in mv88e6xxx cannot move once
> > > installed, then the "sticky" flag accurately describes it.
> > >
> >
> > But since I am also doing the SW bridge implementation without 
> > mv88e6xxx I
> > need it to function according to needs.
> > Thus the locked entries created in the bridge I shall not put the 
> > sticky
> > flag on, but there will be the situation where a locked entry can move 
> > to an
> > unlocked port, which we regarded as a bug.
>
> I do not regard this as a bug. It makes sense to me that an authorized
> port can cause an entry pointing to an unauthorized port to roam to
> itself. Just like normal learned entries. What I considered as a bug is
> the fact that the "locked" flag is not cleared when roaming to an
> authorized port.
>
> > In that case there is two possibilities, the locked entry can move to
> > an unlocked port with the locked flag being removed or the locked
> > entry can only move to another locked port?
>
> My suggestion is to allow roaming and maintain / clear the "locked" 
> flag
> based on whether the new destination port is locked or not.

Thus I understand it as saying that the "locked" flag can also be set 
when roaming from an unlocked port to a locked port?