Message-ID: <87o8hmj8w0.fsf@waldekranz.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 21:19:11 +0100
From:   Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, roopa@...dia.com,
        nikolay@...dia.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us,
        idosch@...sch.org, stephen@...workplumber.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 2/7] net: bridge: switchdev: Include local flag in FDB notifications

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 21:27, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 07:58:59PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> Ah I see, no I was not aware of that. I just saw that the entry towards
>> the CPU was added to the ATU, which it would in both cases. I.e. from
>> the switch's POV, in this setup:
>> 
>>    br0
>>    / \ (A)
>> swp0 dummy0
>>        (B)
>> 
>> A "local" entry like (A), or a "static" entry like (B) means the same
>> thing to the switch: "it is somewhere behind my CPU-port".
>
> Yes, except that if dummy0 was a real and non-switchdev interface, then
> the "local" entry would probably break your traffic if what you meant
> was "static".

Agreed.

>> > So I think there is a very real issue in that the FDB entries with the
>> > is_local bit was never specified to switchdev thus far, and now suddenly
>> > is. I'm sorry, but what you're saying in the commit message, that
>> > "!added_by_user has so far been indistinguishable from is_local" is
>> > simply false.
>> 
>> Alright, so how do you do it? Here is the struct:
>> 
>>     struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info {
>> 	struct switchdev_notifier_info info; /* must be first */
>> 	const unsigned char *addr;
>> 	u16 vid;
>> 	u8 added_by_user:1,
>> 	   offloaded:1;
>>     };
>> 
>> Which field separates a local address on swp0 from a dynamically learned
>> address on swp0?
>
> None, that's the problem. Local addresses are already presented to
> switchdev without saying that they're local. Which is the entire reason
> that users are misled into thinking that the addresses are not local.
>
> I may have misread what you said, but to me, "!added_by_user has so far
> been indistinguishable from is_local" means that:
> - every struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info with added_by_user == true
>   also had an implicit is_local == false
> - every struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info with added_by_user == false
>   also had an implicit is_local == true
> It is _this_ that I deemed as clearly untrue.
>
> The is_local flag is not indistinguishable from !added_by_user, it is
> indistinguishable full stop. Which makes it hard to work with in a
> backwards-compatible way.

This was probably a semantic mistake on my part, we meant the same
thing.

>> Ok, so just to see if I understand this correctly:
>> 
>> The situation today it that `bridge fdb add ADDR dev DEV master` results
>> in flows towards ADDR being sent to:
>> 
>> 1. DEV if DEV belongs to a DSA switch.
>> 2. To the host if DEV was a non-offloaded interface.
>
> Not quite. In the bridge software FDB, the entry is marked as is_local
> in both cases, doesn't matter if the interface is offloaded or not.
> Just that switchdev does not propagate the is_local flag, which makes
> the switchdev listeners think it is not local. The interpretation of
> that will probably vary among switchdev drivers.
>
> The subtlety is that for a non-offloading interface, the
> misconfiguration (when you mean static but use local) is easy to catch.
> Since only the entry from the software FDB will be hit, this means that
> the frame will never be forwarded, so traffic will break.
> But in the case of a switchdev offloading interface, the frames will hit
> the hardware FDB entry more often than the software FDB entry. So
> everything will work just fine and dandy even though it shouldn't.

Quite right.

>> With this series applied both would result in (2) which, while
>> idiosyncratic, is as intended. But this of course runs the risk of
>> breaking existing scripts which rely on the current behavior.
>
> Yes.
>
> My only hope is that we could just offload the entries pointing towards
> br0, and ignore the local ones. But for that I would need the bridge

That was my initial approach. Unfortunately that breaks down when the
bridge inherits its address from a port, i.e. the default case.

When the address is added to the bridge (fdb->dst == NULL), fdb_insert
will find the previous local entry that is set on the port and bail out
before sending a notification:

	if (fdb) {
		/* it is okay to have multiple ports with same
		 * address, just use the first one.
		 */
		if (test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags))
			return 0;
		br_warn(br, "adding interface %s with same address as a received packet (addr:%pM, vlan:%u)\n",
		       source ? source->dev->name : br->dev->name, addr, vid);
		fdb_delete(br, fdb, true);
	}

You could change this so that a notification always is sent out. Or you
could give precedence to !fdb->dst and update the existing entry.

> maintainers to clarify what is the difference between then, as I asked
> in your other patch.

I am pretty sure they mean the same thing, I believe that !fdb->dst
implies is_local. It is just that "bridge fdb add ADDR dev br0 self" is
a new(er) thing, and before that there was "local" entries on ports.

Maybe I should try to get rid of the local flag in the bridge first, and
then come back to this problem once that is done? Either way, I agree
that 5/7 is all we want to add to DSA to get this working.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists