netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration

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: <549367CC.2080307@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:48:28 -0800
From:	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
CC:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	"Varlese, Marco" <marco.varlese@...el.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	"sfeldma@...il.com" <sfeldma@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 1/1] net: Support for switch port configuration

On 12/18/14, 3:26 PM, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
>
> On 12/18/2014 3:07 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> On 12/18/14, 11:21 AM, John Fastabend wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2014 10:14 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/14, 10:02 AM, Varlese, Marco wrote:
>>>>> Removed unnecessary content for ease of reading...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +/* Switch Port Attributes section */
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +enum {
>>>>>>>>>>> +    IFLA_ATTR_UNSPEC,
>>>>>>>>>>> +    IFLA_ATTR_LEARNING,
>>>>>>>>>> Any reason you want learning here ?. This is covered as part  of
>>>>>>>>>> the bridge setlink attributes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, because the user may _not_ want to go through a bridge
>>>>>>>>> interface
>>>>>>>> necessarily.
>>>>>>>> But, the bridge setlink/getlink interface was changed to 
>>>>>>>> accommodate
>>>>>> 'self'
>>>>>>>> for exactly such cases.
>>>>>>>> I kind of understand your case for the other attributes (these are
>>>>>>>> per port settings that switch asics provide).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, i don't understand the reason to pull in bridge 
>>>>>>>> attributes here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe, I am missing something so you might help. The learning 
>>>>>>> attribute -
>>>>>> in my case - it is like all other attributes: a port attribute 
>>>>>> (as you said, port
>>>>>> settings that the switch provides per port).
>>>>>>> So, what I was saying is "why the user shall go through a bridge 
>>>>>>> to configure
>>>>>> the learning attribute"? From my perspective, it is as any other 
>>>>>> attribute and
>>>>>> as such configurable on the port.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thinking about this some more, i don't see why any of these 
>>>>>> attributes
>>>>>> (except loopback. I dont understand the loopback attribute) cant 
>>>>>> be part of
>>>>>> the birdge port attributes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With this we will end up adding l2 attributes in two places: the 
>>>>>> general link
>>>>>> attributes and bridge attributes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And since we have gone down the path of using 
>>>>>> ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink
>>>>>> with 'self'....we should stick to that for all l2 attributes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea of overloading ndo_bridge_set/getlink, was to have the 
>>>>>> same set of
>>>>>> attributes but support both cases where the user wants to go 
>>>>>> through the
>>>>>> bridge driver or directly to the switch port driver. So, you are 
>>>>>> not really going
>>>>>> through the bridge driver if you use 'self' and 
>>>>>> ndo_bridge_setlink/getlink.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Roopa, one of the comments I got from Thomas Graf on my v1 patch
>>>>> was that your patch and mine were supplementary ("I think Roopa's
>>>>> patches are supplementary. Not all switchdev users will be backed
>>>>> with a Linux Bridge. I therefore welcome your patches very
>>>>> much")... I also understood by others that the patch made sense for
>>>>> the same reason. I simply do not understand why these attributes
>>>>> (and maybe others in the future) could not be configured directly
>>>>> on a standard port but have to go through a bridge.
>>>>>
>>>> ok, i am very confused in that case. The whole moving of bridge
>>>> attributes from the bridge driver to rtnetlink.c was to make the
>>>> bridge attributes accessible to any driver who wants to set l2/bridge
>>>> attributes on their switch ports. So, its unclear to me why we are
>>>> doing this parallel thing again. This move to rtnetlink.c was done
>>>> during the recent rocker support. so, maybe scott/jiri can elaborate
>>>> more.
>>>
>>> Not sure if this will add to the confusion or help. But you do not
>>> need to have the bridge.ko loaded or netdev's attached to a bridge
>>> to use the setlink/getlink ndo ops and netlink messages.
>>>
>>> This was intentionally done. Its already used with NIC devices to
>>> configure embedded bridge settings such as VEB/VEPA.
>>
>> that helps my case, thanks.
>
> So the user interface to set/get the per-port attributes will be via 
> 'bridge', not 'ip'
>
>     bridge link set dev sw0p1 port_attr bcast_flooding 1 self
>     bridge link get dev sw0p1 port_attr bcast_flooding self

yes, l2 attributes.
>
> We also need an interface to set per-switch attributes. Can this work?
>     bridge link set dev sw0 sw_attr bcast_flooding 1 master
> where sw0 is a bridge representing the hardware switch.

Not today. We discussed this @ LPC, and one way to do this would be to 
have a device
representing the switch asic. This is in the works.

--
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