[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F5585D9.5080501@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:34:49 -0800
From: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC: jhs@...atatu.com, shemminger@...tta.com, kernel@...tstofly.org,
hadi@...erus.ca, roprabhu@...co.com, mst@...hat.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, gregory.v.rose@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] net: expose ebridge FDB with priv flag IFF_OFFLOADED_FDB
On 3/2/2012 11:56 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 23:17 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> This adds a new private interface flag IFF_OFFLOADED_FDB and an
>> additional ndmsg flag NTF_EMBEDDED.
>>
>> The private flag IFF_OFFLOADED_FDB should be set on devices to
>> indicate an embedded bridging component exists with a forwarding
>> database.
>>
>> With this set PF_BRIDGE:{RTM_NEWNEIGH|RTM_DELNEIGH|RTM_GETNEIGH}
>> netlink msgs can manage the unicast address list on these devices
>> by setting the NTF_EMBEDDED flag in ndm_flags.
>>
>> These commands are compatible with the SW bridge allowing the same
>> user space tools to be used with both SW bridges and HW bridges.
> [...]
>> index 9e70191..7b1a581 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> @@ -211,6 +211,57 @@ static int br_validate(struct nlattr *tb[], struct nlattr *data[])
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int rtnl_offloaded_fdb_add(struct nlmsghdr *nlh, struct net_device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct ndmsg *ndm;
>> + struct netdev_hw_addr *ha;
>> + struct nlattr *tb[NDA_MAX+1];
>> + __u8 *addr;
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + ASSERT_RTNL();
>> +
>> + if (!(dev->priv_flags & IFF_OFFLOADED_FDB))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>
> EOPNOTSUPP
>
Right thanks.
[...]
>> + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(addr))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> There is a pending change to the ndo_validate_addr interface which I
> think would allow us to replace the Ethernet-specific checks with a
> check against dev->addr_len and a call to ndo_validate_addr. Not that I
> really care about anything other than Ethernet, but it would be a little
> more elegant.
>
>> + netif_addr_lock_bh(dev);
>> + list_for_each_entry(ha, &dev->uc.list, list) {
>> + if (!compare_ether_addr(ha->addr, addr)) {
>> + netif_addr_unlock_bh(dev);
>> + return -EEXIST;
>> + }
>> + }
>> + netif_addr_unlock_bh(dev);
>> +
>> + err = dev_uc_add(dev, addr);
> [...]
>
> The software bridge makes the duplicate check conditional on NLM_F_EXCL.
> Shouldn't this be consistent?
Agreed it should be consistent.
>
> Also, this seems racy. If all manipulation of the UC address list is
> serialised by RTNL (which I think in practice it is) then there is no
> race and we also don't need to take the netif_addr_lock(), but if we're
> not allowed to assume that then we shouldn't drop the lock. Perhaps the
> check can be moved into a dev_uc_add_exclusive() or something like that.
>
Yep I'll at least make this consistent with other usages. And maybe a
follow up patch to clean up the usage throughout.
Thanks,
John
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists