netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] bridge: offload bridge port attributes to switch asic if feature flag set

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: <54815A4E.3020806@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Thu, 04 Dec 2014 23:10:06 -0800
From:	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
CC:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	John Linville <linville@...driver.com>,
	"nhorman@...driver.com" <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	"vyasevic@...hat.com" <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	"buytenh@...tstofly.org" <buytenh@...tstofly.org>,
	Aviad Raveh <aviadr@...lanox.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, shm@...ulusnetworks.com,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] bridge: offload bridge port attributes to switch
 asic if feature flag set

On 12/4/14, 10:55 PM, John Fastabend wrote:
> On 12/04/2014 10:41 PM, Scott Feldman wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:26 PM, <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>>> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>>
>>> This allows offloading to switch asic without having the user to set
>>> any flag. And this is done in the bridge driver to rollback kernel 
>>> settings
>>> on hw offload failure if required in the future.
>>>
>>> With this, it also makes sure a notification goes out only after the
>>> attributes are set both in the kernel and hw.
>>
>> I like this approach as it streamlines the steps for the user in
>> setting port flags.  There is one case for FLOODING where you'll have
>> to turn off flooding for both, and then turn on flooding in hw. You
>> don't want flooding turned on on kernel and hw.
>>
>>> ---
>>>   net/bridge/br_netlink.c |   27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>>> index 9f5eb55..ce173f0 100644
>>> --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>>> @@ -407,9 +407,21 @@ int br_setlink(struct net_device *dev, struct 
>>> nlmsghdr *nlh)
>>>                                  afspec, RTM_SETLINK);
>>>          }
>>>
>>> +       if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD) &&
>>> + dev->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_setlink) {
>>> +               int ret = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_bridge_setlink(dev, 
>>> nlh);
>>
>> I think you want to up-level this to net/core/rtnetlink.c because
>> you're only enabling the feature for one instance of a driver that
>> implements ndo_bridge_setlink: the bridge driver.  If another driver
>> was MASTER and implemented ndo_bridge_setlink, you'd want same check
>> to push setting down to SELF port driver.
>
> Also if the user set SELF && MASTER flags && had HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD bit
> set we would call ndo_bridge_setlink twice on the dev. Maybe you can
> catch this case in rtnetlink.c and only call it once.

yes, thought about this and when i looked at iproute2 code, it is either 
master
or self today and i don't think anybody else uses both flags with the 
current
kernel implementation. But yes, that does not stop anybody from setting 
both flags.
I will handle it better in v2.
>
>>
>>> +               if (ret && ret != -EOPNOTSUPP) {
>>> +                       /* XXX Fix this in the future to rollback
>>> +                        * kernel settings and return error
>>> +                        */
>>
>> The future is now.  Let's fix this now for the rollback case (again up
>> in rtnetlink.c).  So then a general question comes to mind: for these
>> dual target sets, is it best to try HW first and then SW, or the other
>> way around?  Either way, on failure on second you need to rollback
>> first.  And, on failure, you need to know rollback value for first, so
>> you have to do a getlink on first before attempting set.
>
> It might be helpful to return some indication of what object failed as
> well.

ok...

thanks,
Roopa

--
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