netdev - Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 0/4] Allow use of rocker ports without bridging

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150414080212.GA2504@vergenet.net>
Date:	Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:02:15 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Arad, Ronen" <ronen.arad@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC net-next 0/4] Allow use of rocker ports without
 bridging

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:23:41AM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Simon Horman
> <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 08:43:16AM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Simon Horman
> >> > <simon.horman@...ronome.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> this short series attempts to allow rocker ports to be used when they
> >> >> are not attached to a bridge. It attempts to make use of flow entries
> >> >> in a rocker switch where appropriate and otherwise forwards packets up
> >> >> to the kernel for processing.
> >> >
> >> > Hi Simon,
> >> >
> >> > Unbridged ports should be working now with current driver/device.  I
> >> > wonder if you have an older qemu rocker device?  Use master branch of
> >> > https://github.com/scottfeldman/qemu-rocker.git.
> >
> > For the record, that is what I am using.
> >
> >> > My test setup is to IPv4 ping two hosts from two different ports.
> >> > Something like:
> >> >
> >> > sw1:sw1p1:11.0.0.1/24 <----------------> h1:eth1:11.0.0.2/24
> >> > sw1:sw1p2:12.0.0.1/24 <----------------> h2:eth1:12.0.0.2/24
> >> >
> >> > ARP and ping work fine.  What is your test setup?  I haven't spent a
> >> > lot of time on unbridged port testing, since major focus has been on
> >> > offloading bridge L2 and L3.
> >
> > My setup is similar if not the same. I used it to test both bridging
> > and routing.
> >
> >> Ah, I think I know why it's not working for you.  You don't have the
> >> VLAN 8021.q module loaded, do you?  I'm getting these:
> >>
> >> [    2.871619] 8021q: 802.1Q VLAN Support v1.8
> >> [    2.871629] 8021q: adding VLAN 0 to HW filter on device sw1p1
> >> [    2.872097] 8021q: adding VLAN 0 to HW filter on device sw1p2
> >>
> >> Which calls into the driver ndo_vlan ops and sets up untagged access.
> >
> > Thanks! There is now one less mystery in my life.
> >
> > I had not considered the ndo_vlan ops and with the 802.1q driver present
> > things seem to work.
> 
> Good.  Sorry about the wasted time.  I'm trying to get the
> Documentation/network/switchdev.txt file updated with notes about
> setup, so at least we all go the same path, right or wrong.

It wasn't really a waste; I learnt a lot about rocker :)

> >> But, dependence on VLAN 802.1q module is wrong I think, and we'll need
> >> your patch (I haven't reviewed it yet, but I'm assuming it's doing
> >> basically what loading what VLAN 802.1q driver forces).
> >
> > Yes, I think that is more or less the case.
> >
> > One thing that my patches did which does not seem to occur without
> > them is to cause, or at least try to cause, all packets to
> > be forwarded to the CPU if the interface is in promiscuous mode.
> > This seems logical to me.
> 
> rocker needs help here for rx filters, for things like IGMP snooping
> and so on.  promisc is ignored now as you found out.  Maybe after this
> vlan stuff gets sorted out with mine and Ronan's patchsets, you can
> look at the rx filters again?  I think we'll need to be more selective
> with some of the default setups, like the bridge or bond putting port
> in promisc by default.  Promisc seems dangerous thing to enable on a
> live switch port.  Firehose in mouth kind of thing.

I agree that it would make sense to try treading carefully in this area
once your and Ronan's patchsets have landed.

> >> The Spring Cleanup patchset has better setlink/dellink support so
> >> driver can manage VLANs from bridge driver and moves away from
> >> ndo_vlan ops used with 802.1q VLAN driver.  Ronan (Cc:d) has a VLAN
> >> patch that builds on top of my Spring Cleanup patchset  I think the
> >> order of changes will be to get my Spring Cleanup patchset in and then
> >> get yours/Ronan's patches in.  And rocker can get away from using
> >> ndo_vlan ops.
> >
> > Sure, that ordering is entirely fine by me.
> >
> >> Would you verify that without your patch, and with VLAN 802.1q driver
> >> loaded, unbridged ports are working?
> >
> > As noted above, I have verified that scenario 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