lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f49561fd-9227-1506-9b5c-c6e6130ba168@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2017 09:37:24 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vivek Unune <npcomplete13@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, hauke@...ke-m.de, zajec5@...il.com,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: BCM5301X: Add support for Linksys EA9500



On 08/13/2017 09:44 PM, Vivek Unune wrote:
> Florian,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Vivek Unune <npcomplete13@...il.com> wrote:
>> Florian,
>>
>>>> I have managed to use DSA driver and was able detect both internal and
>>>> external switches. However, I only get packets flowing only through the
>>>> internal switch. I have used the ip & bridge commands to setup the vlan
>>>> 101 & 102 for lan and wan respectively.
>>>>
>>>> VLAN101 = lan1 lan2 lan3 lan4 lan5 lan6 lan7 lan8 eth0.101
>>>
>>> That looks reasonable although keep in mind that the IMP/CPU interfaces
>>> of the switch are configured with VLAN tags (see commit [1]), so you may
>>> need to make sure that port 0 of the internal switch is not accidentally
>>> configured back to untagged since that would cause problem when
>>> terminating the VLAN tag on the SW side.
>>>
>>> So here are a few things that you want to check:
>>>
>>> - read the MIB counters from the "extswitch" interface and see if
>>> packets flow through in both directions with no errors
>>
>> lan4 is on internal switch, lan1 on external. I cannot ping router from lan1
>>
>> Inter-    |   Receive                |  Transmit
>>  face     |bytes    packets errs drop|bytes    packets errs drop
>> br-lan:      168590    1726    0    0   190542     753    0    0
>> extswitch:        0       0    0    0   101012    1221    0    0
>>   lan1:           0       0    0    0     5382     111    0    0
>>   lan4:           0       0    0    0  1306680   13909    0    0
>>   eth0:     3276924    5539    0    0  1106135    5084    0    0
>> eth0.101:    169338    1732    0    0   190256     750    0    0
>> eth0.102:   2959522    3274    0    0   587248    1094    0    0
>>     lo:       39390     502    0    0    39390     502    0    0
>> br-wan:     2956822    3254    0    0   587248    1094    0    0
>>
> 
> Please ignore above mib counters. I noticed that I see lot of RxFCSErrors
> and RxSymbolErrors for extswitch. The count for both counters always
> remain same.

Yes that is not exactly good, it means that the RGMII interface between
the internal and external switches is not properly configured.

> 
> root@...E:/# ethtool -S extswitch
> NIC statistics:
>      tx_packets: 212
>      tx_bytes: 19179
>      rx_packets: 0
>      rx_bytes: 0
>      TxOctets: 14403
>      TxDropPkts: 0
>      TxBroadcastPkts: 24
>      TxMulticastPkts: 122
>      TxUnicastPkts: 0
>      TxCollisions: 0
>      TxSingleCollision: 0
>      TxMultipleCollision: 0
>      TxDeferredTransmit: 0
>      TxLateCollision: 0
>      TxExcessiveCollision: 0
>      TxPausePkts: 0
>      RxOctets: 3593
>      RxUndersizePkts: 0
>      RxPausePkts: 0
>      Pkts64Octets: 0
>      Pkts65to127Octets: 36
>      Pkts128to255Octets: 1
>      Pkts256to511Octets: 0
>      Pkts512to1023Octets: 0
>      Pkts1024to1522Octets: 0
>      RxOversizePkts: 0
>      RxJabbers: 0
>      RxAlignmentErrors: 0
>      RxFCSErrors: 37
>      RxGoodOctets: 0
>      RxDropPkts: 0
>      RxUnicastPkts: 0
>      RxMulticastPkts: 0
>      RxBroadcastPkts: 0
>      RxSAChanges: 0
>      RxFragments: 0
>      RxJumboPkts: 0
>      RxSymbolErrors: 37
>      RxDiscarded: 0
>      p08_TxOctets: 47537
>      p08_TxDropPkts: 0
>      p08_TxBroadcastPkts: 163
>      p08_TxMulticastPkts: 319
>      p08_TxUnicastPkts: 0
>      p08_TxCollisions: 0
>      p08_TxSingleCollision: 0
>      p08_TxMultipleCollision: 0
>      p08_TxDeferredTransmit: 0
>      p08_TxLateCollision: 0
>      p08_TxExcessiveCollision: 0
>      p08_TxPausePkts: 0
>      p08_RxOctets: 14403
>      p08_RxUndersizePkts: 0
>      p08_RxPausePkts: 0
>      p08_Pkts64Octets: 25
>      p08_Pkts65to127Octets: 102
>      p08_Pkts128to255Octets: 17
>      p08_Pkts256to511Octets: 2
>      p08_Pkts512to1023Octets: 0
>      p08_Pkts1024to1522Octets: 0
>      p08_RxOversizePkts: 0
>      p08_RxJabbers: 0
>      p08_RxAlignmentErrors: 0
>      p08_RxFCSErrors: 0
>      p08_RxGoodOctets: 14403
>      p08_RxDropPkts: 0
>      p08_RxUnicastPkts: 0
>      p08_RxMulticastPkts: 122
>      p08_RxBroadcastPkts: 24
>      p08_RxSAChanges: 40
>      p08_RxFragments: 0
>      p08_RxJumboPkts: 0
>      p08_RxSymbolErrors: 0
>      p08_RxDiscarded: 146
> 
> 
>>>
>>> - check the "extswitch" VLAN configuration on both the internal switch
>>> side (port 0) and on the external switch side ("cpu", port 8, not visible)
>>
>> #bridge vlan show
>> port    vlan ids
>> extswitch       None
>> extswitch
>> lan7     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan7     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan4     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan4     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan8     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan8     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> wan      102 PVID Egress Untagged
>> wan      102 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan1     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan1     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan5     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan5     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan2     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan2     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan6     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan6     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan3     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> lan3     101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> br-lan  None
>> eth0.101         101 PVID Egress Untagged
>> eth0.101
>> br-wan  None
>> eth0.102         102 PVID Egress Untagged
>> eth0.102
>>
>>>
>>> - see if you can get traffic end-to-end from eth0 all the way through
>>> one of the external switch port. If that's the case, that means that the
>>> configuration of internal switch port 0, internal switch CPU port, and
>>> external switch external port is working and operational
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=e47112d9d6009bf6b7438cedc0270316d6b0370d
>>>
>>>> VLAN102 = wan eth0.102
>>>>
>>>> Reading configs from the factory firmware, I'm sure that sw0port0 and> sw1port8 are connected. Excerpt from the same:
>>>>
>>>> port_numbers=0 2 4 2 1 3 1 3
>>>> port_switch_id=1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
>>>> port_names=port0 port1 port2 port3 port4 port5 port6 port7
>>>
>>> Is 0 the identifier for the external or internal switch? If 0 is
>>> internal switch identifier and 1 is the external switch identifier, your
>>> mapping looks correct to me with one exception below:
>>
>> 0 is internal here.
>>
>>>
>>>> cpu_port_number=5 7 8
>>>> cpu_port_switch_id=0 0 0
>>>> hidden_port_numbers=0 8
>>>> hidden_port_switch_id=0 1
>>>>
>>>> Below is my updated device tree.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Vivek
>>>>
>>>> &srab {
>>>>     compatible = "brcm,bcm53012-srab", "brcm,bcm5301x-srab";
>>>>     status = "okay";
>>>>     dsa,member = <0 0>;
>>>>
>>>>     ports {
>>>>         #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>         #size-cells = <0>;
>>>>
>>>>         port@1 {
>>>>             reg = <1>;
>>>>             label = "lan7";
>>>>         };
>>>>
>>>>         port@2 {
>>>>             reg = <2>;
>>>>             label = "lan4";
>>>>         };
>>>>
>>>>         port@3 {
>>>>             reg = <3>;
>>>>             label = "lan8";
>>>>         };
>>>>
>>>>         port@4 {
>>>>             reg = <4>;
>>>>             label = "wan";
>>>>         };
>>>>
>>>>         port@5 {
>>>>             reg = <5>;
>>>>             ethernet = <&gmac0>;
>>>>             label = "cpu";
>>>>
>>>>             fixed-link {
>>>>
>>>>                 speed = <1000>;
>>>>                 full-duplex;
>>>>             };
>>>>         };
>>>
>>> I think this is meant to be port 8 here based on the hidden_port_number
>>> value. This actually matters for VLAN configuration because B53 is not
>>> (unfortunately, to be fixed) consistently using dst->cpu_port (whatever
>>> is configured in Device Tree) vs. dev->cpu_port (hardcoded to 8 for this
>>> class of switch).
>>
>> When I connect to port 8 I receive no packets on internal switch.
> 
> I'm able to now use sw0port8 <-> eth2 (i.e use cpu port 8 to connect to gmac2).
> For this I had to modify net/dsa/b53/b53_common.c (see below). This is how
> it is setup in net/phy/b53/b53_common.c. Also need to set
> cpu_port = B53_CPU_PORT for 53012 sw instead of B53_CPU_PORT_25

I actually plan to remove the use cpu_port entirely, or actually only
use it as a "hint" of which CPU ports are capable of supporting Broadcom
tags. A better change for now would be not to use dev->cpu_port, but
instead use ds->dst->cpu_dp->index like what b53_br_join() does.

> 
> @@ -357,9 +357,11 @@ static void b53_enable_vlan(struct b53_d
>   b53_read8(dev, B53_VLAN_PAGE, B53_VLAN_CTRL5, &vc5);
>   }
> 
> - mgmt &= ~SM_SW_FWD_MODE;
> 
>   if (enable) {
> +
> + mgmt |= SM_SW_FWD_MODE;
> +

Humm, that I don't really understand because this is turning on managed
mode which only influences how multicast addresses are processed, it
should not make a different for non-MC traffic AFAICT.

>   vc0 |= VC0_VLAN_EN | VC0_VID_CHK_EN | VC0_VID_HASH_VID;
>   vc1 |= VC1_RX_MCST_UNTAG_EN | VC1_RX_MCST_FWD_EN;
>   vc4 &= ~VC4_ING_VID_CHECK_MASK;
> 
>>
>>>
>>> PS: on that front, we will have to rework that when we bring multiple
>>> CPU port support in DSA/B53/bcm_sf2 and so for now what we could do is
>>> just check that the configured CPU port in Device Tree is a valid CPU
>>> port for that switch (typically 5, 7 or 8), and if not, just issue a
>>> warning.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>         sw0port0: port@0 {
>>>>             reg = <0>;
>>>>             label = "extswitch";
>>>>
>>>>             fixed-link {
>>>>                 speed = <1000>;
>>>>                 full-duplex;
>>>>             };
>>>
>>> There might be some additional configuration needed here for this port,
>>> because by default, the port will most likely try to use its built-in
>>> PHY and maybe that's what they did, they wired the built-in PHY directly
>>> to the IMP port of the external switch.
>>
>> Do you know what that configuration might be?
> 
> Given that I see RxFCSErrors and RxSymbolErrors errors wrt extswitch.
> configuration definitely needs tweaking. I tried setting the phy-mode to
> rgmii and rgmii-txid but no go.

Configuration may have to be tuned on both switches unfortunately
because both RGMII interfaces would have the ability to configure
delays. Do you have a way to dump what the original firmware settings
for the register that b53_adjust_link() modifies such that we can see
what was previous configured?

Thanks!
-- 
Florian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ