On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:23:55AM +0200, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 2022-09-11 02:13, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 03:11:56PM +0200, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:10:07PM +0200, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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'? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is the idea. > > > > > > > > > > > If so, it's up to the DSA maintainers to decide. > > > > > > > > What will be the usefulness of adding a blackhole FDB entry from user > > > > space? > > > > > > With the software bridge it could be used to signal a untrusted host > > > in > > > connection with a locked port entry attempt. I don't see so much use > > > other > > > that test purposes with the driver though. > > > > Not a huge selling point, to be honest. Can't the blackhole flag remain > > settable only in the device -> bridge direction, with user space just > > reading it? > > That is possible, but it would of course not make sense to have selftests of > the feature as that would not work unless there is a driver with this > capability (now just mv88e6xxx). The new "blackhole" flag requires changes in the bridge driver and without allowing user space to add such entries, the only way to test these changes is with mv88e6xxx which many of us do not have...
