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

[Nikolay Aleksandrov]

On 29/08/2022 10:52, 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.

+1

I prefer to fail explicitly too, actually I also had a comment about this but
somehow have managed to delete it before sending my review. :)