Message-ID: <561B885E.7070606@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Oct 2015 12:15:58 +0200
From:	Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
Cc:	Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, Elad Raz <eladr@...lanox.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: switchdev and VLAN ranges

On 10/12/2015 07:14 AM, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov
> <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2015 12:41 AM, Vivien Didelot wrote:
>>> On Oct. Sunday 11 (41) 09:12 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>>>> Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:36:26PM CEST, nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>>>>> On 10/10/2015 09:49 AM, Elad Raz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2015, at 2:30 AM, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have two concerns in mind:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a) if we imagine that drivers like Rocker allocate memory in the prepare
>>>>>>> phase for each VID, preparing a range like 100-4000 would definitely not
>>>>>>> be recommended.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b) imagine that you have two Linux bridges on a switch, one using the
>>>>>>> hardware VLAN 100. If you request the VLAN range 99-101 for the other
>>>>>>> bridge members, it is not possible for the driver to say "I can
>>>>>>> accelerate VLAN 99 and 101, but not 100". It must return OPNOTSUPP for
>>>>>>> the whole range.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another concern I have with vid_being..vid_end range is the “flags”. Where flags can be BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID.
>>>>>> There is no sense having more than one VLAN as a PVID.
>>>>>> This leave the HW vendor the choice which VLAN id they will use as the PVID.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> iproute2 doesn't allow to do it but I can see that someone can actually make it
>>>>> so the flags for the range have it and it doesn't look correct. Perhaps we need
>>>>> something like the patch below to enforce this from kernel-side.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>>>>> index d78b4429505a..02b17b53e9a6 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>>>>> @@ -524,6 +524,9 @@ static int br_afspec(struct net_bridge *br,
>>>>>                     if (vinfo_start)
>>>>>                             return -EINVAL;
>>>>>                     vinfo_start = vinfo;
>>>>> +                   /* don't allow range of pvids */
>>>>> +                   if (vinfo_start->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID)
>>>>> +                           return -EINVAL;
>>>>>                     continue;
>>>>>             }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks correct to me. Could you please submit this properly? Thanks!
>>>
>>> The above patch is correct, but we only solve part of the problem, since
>>> the range and bridge flags are exposed by switchdev_obj_port_vlan as is.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -v
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the above fixes the bridge side. About the switchdev side it seems like it's
>> up to the switchdev driver to do the right thing in its switchdev_ops. I took a
>> quick look at DSA and it seems correct, the flag isn't saved and on dump request
>> the flags are generated so it shouldn't be possible to export multiple pvids.
>> But switchdev_port_br_afspec() seems problematic, in fact I don't even see a vlan
>> id check, i.e. ==0 || >= VLAN_N_MASK.
>> Of course, I might be totally off point as I'm not that familiar with switchdev and
>> it's very late. :-)
>> But maybe it needs something like:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> index 6e4a4f9ad927..3dd52a53867f 100644
>> --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/notifier.h>
>>  #include <linux/netdevice.h>
>>  #include <linux/if_bridge.h>
>> +#include <linux/if_vlan.h>
>>  #include <linux/list.h>
>>  #include <net/ip_fib.h>
>>  #include <net/switchdev.h>
>> @@ -716,10 +717,14 @@ static int switchdev_port_br_afspec(struct net_device *dev,
>>                         return -EINVAL;
>>                 vinfo = nla_data(attr);
>>                 vlan.flags = vinfo->flags;
>> +               if (!vinfo->vid || vinfo->vid >= VLAN_VID_MASK)
>> +                        return -EINVAL;
>>                 if (vinfo->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_BEGIN) {
>>                         if (vlan.vid_begin)
>>                                 return -EINVAL;
>>                         vlan.vid_begin = vinfo->vid;
>> +                       if (vlan.flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID)
>> +                               return -EINVAL;
>>                 } else if (vinfo->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_END) {
>>                         if (!vlan.vid_begin)
>>                                 return -EINVAL;
> 
> This (and you other patch) seem right to me, if we're going to block
> setting PVID when specifying a vlan range.  Would you mind combining
> and resending both patches as one as a proper patch?
> 

Thanks for the review, I'll prepare a small set as I'd like to keep these
separate since they touch two different subsystems and will re-post.
I'll target net-next with the pvid range change and -net with the vlan
range check patch. Does this sound okay ?

Thanks,
 Nik

--
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