Linux Ethernet Bridging - Oct 2022 - [Bridge] [PATCH v6 net-next 0/9] Extend locked port feature with FDB locked flag (MAC-Auth/MAB)

On 2022-09-29 20:27, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:37:09 +0200 netdev at kapio-technology.com wrote:
>> On 2022-09-29 18:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 17:02:47 +0200 Hans Schultz wrote:
>> >> From: "Hans J. Schultz" <netdev at
kapio-technology.com>
>> >>
>> >> This patch set extends the locked port feature for devices
>> >> that are behind a locked port, but do not have the ability to
>> >> authorize themselves as a supplicant using IEEE 802.1X.
>> >> Such devices can be printers, meters or anything related to
>> >> fixed installations. Instead of 802.1X authorization, devices
>> >> can get access based on their MAC addresses being whitelisted.
>> >
>> > Try a allmodconfig build on latest net-next, seems broken.
Obviously my method of selecting all switchcore drivers with sub-options 
under menuconfig was not sufficient, and I didn't know of the 
allmodconfig option, otherwise I would have used it.

So the question is if I should repost the fixed patch-set or I need to 
make a new version?

Anyhow I hope that there will not be problems when running the 
selftests, as I have not been able to do so with my system, so there can 
be more that needs to be changed.

If anyone needs it, here is the compile fix patch:

diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/qca/qca8k-common.c 
b/drivers/net/dsa/qca/qca8k-common.c
index 0c5f49de6729..e26a9a483955 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/qca/qca8k-common.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/qca/qca8k-common.c
@@ -809,7 +809,7 @@ int qca8k_port_fdb_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int 
port,

  int qca8k_port_fdb_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
  		       const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
-		       struct dsa_db db)
+		       u16 fdb_flags, struct dsa_db db)
  {
  	struct qca8k_priv *priv = (struct qca8k_priv *)ds->priv;
  	u16 port_mask = BIT(port);
diff --git a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c 
b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
index 1f12a5b89c91..526177813d53 100644
--- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105_main.c
@@ -1938,7 +1938,7 @@ static void sja1105_fast_age(struct dsa_switch 
*ds, int port)

  		u64_to_ether_addr(l2_lookup.macaddr, macaddr);

-		rc = sja1105_fdb_del(ds, port, macaddr, l2_lookup.vlanid, db);
+		rc = sja1105_fdb_del(ds, port, macaddr, l2_lookup.vlanid, 0, db);
  		if (rc) {
  			dev_err(ds->dev,
  				"Failed to delete FDB entry %pM vid %lld: %pe\n",
@@ -1952,14 +1952,14 @@ static int sja1105_mdb_add(struct dsa_switch 
*ds, int port,
  			   const struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb,
  			   struct dsa_db db)
  {
-	return sja1105_fdb_add(ds, port, mdb->addr, mdb->vid, false, db);
+	return sja1105_fdb_add(ds, port, mdb->addr, mdb->vid, 0, db);
  }

  static int sja1105_mdb_del(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
  			   const struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb,
  			   struct dsa_db db)
  {
-	return sja1105_fdb_del(ds, port, mdb->addr, mdb->vid, db);
+	return sja1105_fdb_del(ds, port, mdb->addr, mdb->vid, 0, db);
  }

  /* Common function for unicast and broadcast flood configuration.

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 07:42:37AM +0200, netdev at kapio-technology.com
wrote:
> Obviously my method of selecting all switchcore drivers with sub-options
> under menuconfig was not sufficient, and I didn't know of the
allmodconfig
> option, otherwise I would have used it.
You can see build issues on patchwork:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20220928150256.115248-6-netdev
at kapio-technology.com/

Also:

https://docs.kernel.org/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#what-level-of-testing-is-expected-before-i-submit-my-change

https://docs.kernel.org/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#can-i-reproduce-the-checks-from-patchwork-on-my-local-machine

https://docs.kernel.org/next/process/maintainer-netdev.html#running-all-the-builds-and-checks-locally-is-a-pain-can-i-post-my-patches-and-have-the-patchwork-bot-validate-them
> So the question is if I should repost the fixed patch-set or I need to make
> a new version?
A new fixed version (v7) is required, but wait for this version to be
reviewed first.
> Anyhow I hope that there will not be problems when running the selftests,
as
> I have not been able to do so with my system, so there can be more that
> needs to be changed.
It's not really acceptable to post tests that you haven't run... What
exactly is the issue? You should be able to run the tests with veth
pairs in a VM.

On 2022-09-30 16:05, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> 
> It's not really acceptable to post tests that you haven't run...
What
> exactly is the issue? You should be able to run the tests with veth
> pairs in a VM.
Sorry about that, I have now got something up and running by using live 
Ubuntu on a USB...