Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: add locked entry fdb flag to extend locked port feature

[netdev]

On 2022-08-29 09:52, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 12:23:30PM +0200, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> wrote:
> > On 2022-08-27 17:19, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:45:33PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
> > > >
> > > >  	nbp_switchdev_frame_mark(p, skb);
> > > > @@ -943,6 +946,10 @@ static int br_setport(struct net_bridge_port
> > > > *p, struct nlattr *tb[],
> > > >  	br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_NEIGH_SUPPRESS,
> > > > BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS);
> > > >  	br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_ISOLATED, BR_ISOLATED);
> > > >  	br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_LOCKED, BR_PORT_LOCKED);
> > > > +	br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_MAB, BR_PORT_MAB);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!(p->flags & BR_PORT_LOCKED))
> > > > +		p->flags &= ~BR_PORT_MAB;
> >
> > The reason for this is that I wanted it to be so that if you have MAB
> > enabled (and locked of course) and unlock the port, it will 
> > automatically
> > clear both flags instead of having to first disable MAB and then 
> > unlock the
> > port.
>
> User space can just do:
>
> # bridge link set dev swp1 locked off mab off
>
> I prefer not to push such logic into the kernel and instead fail
> explicitly. I won't argue if more people are in favor.

I shall do it as you suggest. It sounds fair. :-)