Message-ID: <1380043818.4391.26.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 25 Sep 2013 02:30:18 +0900
From:	Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>
To:	vyasevic@...hat.com
Cc:	Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao <fernando_b1@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] bridge: Fix problems around the PVID

On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 09:35 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 09/24/2013 07:45 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-09-23 at 10:41 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >> On 09/17/2013 04:12 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-09-16 at 13:49 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >>>> On 09/13/2013 08:06 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:00 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >>>>>> From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
> >>>>>> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:27:54 +0900
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There seem to be some undesirable behaviors related with PVID.
> >>>>>>> 1. It has no effect assigning PVID to a port. PVID cannot be applied
> >>>>>>> to any frame regardless of whether we set it or not.
> >>>>>>> 2. FDB entries learned via frames applied PVID are registered with
> >>>>>>> VID 0 rather than VID value of PVID.
> >>>>>>> 3. We can set 0 or 4095 as a PVID that are not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q.
> >>>>>>> This leads interoperational problems such as sending frames with VID
> >>>>>>> 4095, which is not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q, and treating frames with VID
> >>>>>>> 0 as they belong to VLAN 0, which is expected to be handled as they have
> >>>>>>> no VID according to IEEE 802.1Q.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Note: 2nd and 3rd problems are potential and not exposed unless 1st problem
> >>>>>>> is fixed, because we cannot activate PVID due to it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please work out the issues in patch #2 with Vlad and resubmit this
> >>>>>> series.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm hovering between whether we should fix the issue by changing vlan 0
> >>>>> interface behavior in 8021q module or enabling a bridge port to sending
> >>>>> priority-tagged frames, or another better way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you could comment it, I'd appreciate it :)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW, I think what is discussed in patch #2 is another problem about
> >>>>> handling priority-tags, and it exists without this patch set applied.
> >>>>> It looks like that we should prepare another patch set than this to fix
> >>>>> that problem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should I include patches that fix the priority-tags problem in this
> >>>>> patch set and resubmit them all together?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I am thinking that we might need to do it in bridge and it looks like
> >>>> the simplest way to do it is to have default priority regeneration table
> >>>> (table 6-5 from 802.1Q doc).
> >>>>
> >>>> That way I think we would conform to the spec.
> >>>>
> >>>> -vlad
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately I don't think the default priority regeneration table
> >>> resolves the problem because IEEE 802.1Q says that a VLAN-aware bridge
> >>> can transmit untagged or VLAN-tagged frames only (the end of section 7.5
> >>> and 8.1.7).
> >>>
> >>> No mechanism to send priority-tagged frames is found as far as I can see
> >>> the standard. I think the regenerated priority is used for outgoing PCP
> >>> field only if egress policy is not untagged (i.e. transmitting as
> >>> VLAN-tagged), and unused if untagged (Section 6.9.2 3rd/4th Paragraph).
> >>>
> >>> If we want to transmit priority-tagged frames from a bridge port, I
> >>> think we need to implement a new (optional) feature that is above the
> >>> standard, as I stated previously.
> >>>
> >>> How do you feel about adding a per-port policy that enables a bridge to
> >>> send priority-tagged frames instead of untagged frames when egress
> >>> policy for the port is untagged?
> >>> With this change, we can transmit frames for a given vlan as either all
> >>> untagged, all priority-tagged or all VLAN-tagged.
> >>
> >> That would work.  What I am thinking is that we do it by special casing
> >> the vid 0 egress policy specification.  Let it be untagged by default
> >> and if it is tagged, then we preserve the priority field and forward
> >> it on.
> >>
> >> This keeps the API stable and doesn't require user/admin from knowing
> >> exactly what happens.  Default operation conforms to the spec and allows
> >> simple change to make it backward-compatible.
> >>
> >> What do you think.  I've done a simple prototype of this an it seems to
> >> work with the VMs I am testing with.
> >
> > Are you saying that
> > - by default, set the 0th bit of untagged_bitmap; and
> > - if we unset the 0th bit and set the "vid"th bit, we transmit frames
> > classified as belonging to VLAN "vid" as priority-tagged?
> >
> > If so, though it's attractive to keep current API, I'm worried about if
> > it could be a bit confusing and not intuitive for kernel/iproute2
> > developers that VID 0 has a special meaning only in the egress policy.
> > Wouldn't it be better to adding a new member to struct net_port_vlans
> > instead of using VID 0 of untagged_bitmap?
> >
> > Or are you saying that we use a new flag in struct net_port_vlans but
> > use the BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_UNTAGGED bit with VID 0 in netlink to set the
> > flag?
> >
> > Even in that case, I'm afraid that it might be confusing for developers
> > for the same reason. We are going to prohibit to specify VID with 0 (and
> > 4095) in adding/deleting a FDB entry or a vlan filtering entry, but it
> > would allow us to use VID 0 only when a vlan filtering entry is
> > configured.
> > I am thinking a new nlattr is a straightforward approach to configure
> > it.
> 
> By making this an explicit attribute it makes vid 0 a special case for
> any automatic tool that would provision such filtering.  Seeing vid 0
> would mean that these tools would have to know that this would have to
> be translated to a different attribute instead of setting the policy
> values.

Yes, I agree with you that we can do it by the way you explained.
What I don't understand is the advantage of using vid 0 over another way
such as adding a new nlattr.
I think we can indicate transmitting priority-tags explicitly by such a
nlattr. Using vid 0 seems to be easier to implement than a new nlattr,
but, for me, it looks less intuitive and more difficult to maintain
because we have to care about vid 0 instead of simply ignoring it.

Thanks,

Toshiaki Makita

> 
> How it is implemented internally in the kernel isn't as big of an issue.
> We can do it as a separate flag or as part of existing policy.
> 
> -vlad
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Toshiaki Makita
> >
> >>
> >> -vlad
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Toshiaki Makita
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Toshiaki Makita
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >
> >
> 


--
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