Message-ID: <54E76912.3090203@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:04:18 -0800
From:	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: Port STP state after removing port from bridge

On 20/02/15 07:03, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>> Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 05:45:01AM CET, sfeldma@...il.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> It just occured to me that the following sequence:
>>>>
>>>> brctl addbr br0
>>>> brctl addif br0 port0
>>>> ... STP happens
>>>> brctl delif br0 port0
>>>>
>>>> will leave port0 in STP disabled state, because the bridge code will
>>>> set the STP state to DISABLED, and only a down/up sequence can bring
>>>> it back to FORWARDING.
>>>>
>>>> Is this something that we should somehow fix? As an user it seems a
>>>> little convoluted having to do a down/up sequence to restore things. I
>>>> believe however that it is valid for the bridge layer to mark a port
>>>> as DISABLED when removing it. This is typically not noticed or even
>>>> remotely a problem with software bridges because we cannot enforce an
>>>> actual STP state at the HW level.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The fix in rocker would be:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> index 34389b6a..e2004fb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> @@ -4456,8 +4456,10 @@ static int rocker_port_bridge_leave(struct
>>> rocker_port *rocker_port)
>>>                rocker_port_internal_vlan_id_get(rocker_port,
>>>                                                 rocker_port->dev->ifindex);
>>>        err = rocker_port_vlan(rocker_port, 0, 0);
>>> +       if (err)
>>> +               return err;
>>>
>>> -       return err;
>>> +       return rocker_port_stp_update(rocker_port, BR_STATE_FORWARDING);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> This will return the port back to it's initial state of
>>> BR_STATE_FORWARDING, after it's removed from the bridge.
>>>
>>> I'll include this patch in the rocker pile to be pushed later.
>>>
>>> -scott
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure, but wouldn't it be nicer it the bridge code would set
>> state to disabled before the port is removed from the bridge?
> 
> When the port is removed from a bridge, for example with brctl delif,
> the bridge driver puts port in BR_STATE_DISABLED and then sends
> netdevice event NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER.  In response to
> NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, the rocker driver is returning port back to
> BR_STATE_FORWARDING (the initial state for an un-bridged port).  So
> this preserves bridge behavior for non-switchdev uses.  Does this
> answer the question, or did I miss understand your question?

I think what we want is a solution at the bridge level, we have rocker
now updating the STP state to BR_STATE_FORWARDING when a given
rocker_port leaves a bridge, and I also had a similar change in DSA.

Something like this maybe (untested):

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
index b087d278c679..d693a2a10b3c 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
@@ -242,6 +242,8 @@ static void del_nbp(struct net_bridge_port *p)

        spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
        br_stp_disable_port(p);
+       if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD)
+               br_set_state(p, BR_STATE_FORWARDING);
        spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock);

        br_ifinfo_notify(RTM_DELLINK, p);
-- 
Florian
--
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