Linux Ethernet Bridging - Sep 2022 - [Bridge] [PATCH v5 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add test of MAC-Auth Bypass to locked port tests

On 2022-09-03 16:47, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 06:13:14PM +0200, netdev at kapio-technology.com 
> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-29 18:03, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 05:08:23PM +0200, netdev at
kapio-technology.com
>> > wrote:
>> > > On 2022-08-29 16:37, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 02:04:42PM +0200, netdev at
kapio-technology.com
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > On 2022-08-29 13:32, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > > > > Port association is needed for MAB to work at all
on mv88e6xxx, but
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > 802.1X port association is only needed for dynamic
ATU entries.
>> > > >
>> > > > Ageing of dynamic entries in the bridge requires
learning to be on as
>> > > > well, but in these test cases you are only using static
entries and
>> > > > there is no reason to enable learning in the bridge for
that. I prefer
>> > > > not to leak this mv88e6xxx implementation detail to user
space and
>> > > > instead have the driver enable port association based on
whether
>> > > > "learning" or "mab" is on.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Then it makes most sense to have the mv88e6xxx driver enable
port
>> > > association when then port is locked, as it does now.
>> >
>> > As you wish, but like you wrote "802.1X port association is
only needed
>> > for dynamic ATU entries" and in this case user space needs to
enable
>> > learning (for refresh only) so you can really key off learning on
>> > "learning || mab". User space can decide to lock the
port and work with
>> > static entries and then learning is not required.
>> 
>> I will of course remove all "learning on" in the selftests,
which is
>> what I
>> think you are referring to. In the previous I am referring to the code 
>> in
>> the driver itself which I understand shall turn on port association 
>> with
>> locked ports, e.g. no need for "learning on" when using the
feature in
>> general outside selftests...
> 
> "learning on" is needed when dynamic FDB entries are used to
authorize
> hosts. Without learning being enabled, the bridge driver (or the
> underlying hardware) will not refresh the entries during forwarding and
> they will age out, resulting in packet loss until the hosts are
> re-authorized.
> 
> Given the current test cases only use static entries, there is no need
> to enable learning on locked ports. This will change when test cases 
> are
> added with dynamic entries.
> 
> Regarding mv88e6xxx, my understanding is that you also need learning
> enabled for MAB (I assume for the violation interrupts). Therefore, for
> mv88e6xxx, learning can be enabled if learning is on or MAB is on.
> Enabling it based on whether the port is locked or not seems 
> inaccurate.
Given that 'learning on' is needed for hardware refreshing of ATU 
entries (mv88e6xxx), and that will in the future be needed in general, I 
think it is best to enable it when a port is locked. Also the matter is 
that the locked feature needs to modify the register that contains the 
PAV. So I see it as natural that it is done there, as it will eventually 
have to be done there.
That the selftests do not need it besides when activating MAB, I think, 
is a special case.

I am at the blackhole driver implementation now, as I suppose that the 
iproute2 command should work with the mv88e6xxx driver when adding 
blackhole entries (with a added selftest)?
I decided to add the blackhole feature as new ops for drivers with 
functions blackhole_fdb_add() and blackhole_fdb_del(). Do you agree with 
that approach?

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:10:07PM +0200, netdev at kapio-technology.com
wrote:
> I am at the blackhole driver implementation now, as I suppose that the
> iproute2 command should work with the mv88e6xxx driver when adding
blackhole
> entries (with a added selftest)?
> I decided to add the blackhole feature as new ops for drivers with
functions
> blackhole_fdb_add() and blackhole_fdb_del(). Do you agree with that
> approach?
I assume you are talking about extending 'dsa_switch_ops'? If so,
it's
up to the DSA maintainers to decide.