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.
