Message-ID: <602ff919-61ce-2e8e-55f1-5a1bf21e90a1@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:56:37 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>,
        Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 08/16] net: dsa: replay port and
 host-joined mdb entries when joining the bridge



On 3/20/2021 2:53 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 03:20:38PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/18/2021 4:18 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
>>>
>>> I have udhcpcd in my system and this is configured to bring interfaces
>>> up as soon as they are created.
>>>
>>> I create a bridge as follows:
>>>
>>> ip link add br0 type bridge
>>>
>>> As soon as I create the bridge and udhcpcd brings it up, I have some
>>> other crap (avahi)
>>
>> How dare you ;)
> 
> Well, it comes preinstalled on my system, I don't need it, and it has
> caused me nothing but trouble. So I think it has earned its title :D
> 
>>> that starts sending some random IPv6 packets to
>>> advertise some local services, and from there, the br0 bridge joins the
>>> following IPv6 groups:
>>>
>>> 33:33:ff:6d:c1:9c vid 0
>>> 33:33:00:00:00:6a vid 0
>>> 33:33:00:00:00:fb vid 0
>>>
>>> br_dev_xmit
>>> -> br_multicast_rcv
>>>    -> br_ip6_multicast_add_group
>>>       -> __br_multicast_add_group
>>>          -> br_multicast_host_join
>>>             -> br_mdb_notify
>>>
>>> This is all fine, but inside br_mdb_notify we have br_mdb_switchdev_host
>>> hooked up, and switchdev will attempt to offload the host joined groups
>>> to an empty list of ports. Of course nobody offloads them.
>>>
>>> Then when we add a port to br0:
>>>
>>> ip link set swp0 master br0
>>>
>>> the bridge doesn't replay the host-joined MDB entries from br_add_if,
>>> and eventually the host joined addresses expire, and a switchdev
>>> notification for deleting it is emitted, but surprise, the original
>>> addition was already completely missed.
>>>
>>> The strategy to address this problem is to replay the MDB entries (both
>>> the port ones and the host joined ones) when the new port joins the
>>> bridge, similar to what vxlan_fdb_replay does (in that case, its FDB can
>>> be populated and only then attached to a bridge that you offload).
>>> However there are 2 possibilities: the addresses can be 'pushed' by the
>>> bridge into the port, or the port can 'pull' them from the bridge.
>>>
>>> Considering that in the general case, the new port can be really late to
>>> the party, and there may have been many other switchdev ports that
>>> already received the initial notification, we would like to avoid
>>> delivering duplicate events to them, since they might misbehave. And
>>> currently, the bridge calls the entire switchdev notifier chain, whereas
>>> for replaying it should just call the notifier block of the new guy.
>>> But the bridge doesn't know what is the new guy's notifier block, it
>>> just knows where the switchdev notifier chain is. So for simplification,
>>> we make this a driver-initiated pull for now, and the notifier block is
>>> passed as an argument.
>>>
>>> To emulate the calling context for mdb objects (deferred and put on the
>>> blocking notifier chain), we must iterate under RCU protection through
>>> the bridge's mdb entries, queue them, and only call them once we're out
>>> of the RCU read-side critical section.
>>>
>>> Suggested-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
>>> ---
>>>  include/linux/if_bridge.h |  9 +++++
>>>  net/bridge/br_mdb.c       | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  net/dsa/dsa_priv.h        |  2 +
>>>  net/dsa/port.c            |  6 +++
>>>  net/dsa/slave.c           |  2 +-
>>>  5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/if_bridge.h b/include/linux/if_bridge.h
>>> index ebd16495459c..4c25dafb013d 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/if_bridge.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/if_bridge.h
>>> @@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ bool br_multicast_has_querier_anywhere(struct net_device *dev, int proto);
>>>  bool br_multicast_has_querier_adjacent(struct net_device *dev, int proto);
>>>  bool br_multicast_enabled(const struct net_device *dev);
>>>  bool br_multicast_router(const struct net_device *dev);
>>> +int br_mdb_replay(struct net_device *br_dev, struct net_device *dev,
>>> +		  struct notifier_block *nb, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
>>>  #else
>>>  static inline int br_multicast_list_adjacent(struct net_device *dev,
>>>  					     struct list_head *br_ip_list)
>>> @@ -93,6 +95,13 @@ static inline bool br_multicast_router(const struct net_device *dev)
>>>  {
>>>  	return false;
>>>  }
>>> +static inline int br_mdb_replay(struct net_device *br_dev,
>>> +				struct net_device *dev,
>>> +				struct notifier_block *nb,
>>> +				struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>> +{
>>> +	return -EINVAL;
>>
>> Should we return -EOPNOTUSPP such that this is not made fatal for DSA if
>> someone compiles its kernel with CONFIG_BRIDGE_IGMP_SNOOPING disabled?
> 
> Sure, I'll change the return values of the shims everywhere.
> 
>>> +}
>>>  #endif
>>>
>>>  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BRIDGE) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BRIDGE_VLAN_FILTERING)
>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_mdb.c b/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
>>> index 8846c5bcd075..23973186094c 100644
>>> --- a/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
>>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_mdb.c
>>> @@ -506,6 +506,90 @@ static void br_mdb_complete(struct net_device *dev, int err, void *priv)
>>>  	kfree(priv);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> +static int br_mdb_replay_one(struct notifier_block *nb, struct net_device *dev,
>>> +			     struct net_bridge_mdb_entry *mp, int obj_id,
>>> +			     struct net_device *orig_dev,
>>> +			     struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct switchdev_notifier_port_obj_info obj_info = {
>>> +		.info = {
>>> +			.dev = dev,
>>> +			.extack = extack,
>>> +		},
>>> +	};
>>> +	struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb mdb = {
>>> +		.obj = {
>>> +			.orig_dev = orig_dev,
>>> +			.id = obj_id,
>>> +		},
>>> +		.vid = mp->addr.vid,
>>> +	};
>>> +	int err;
>>> +
>>> +	if (mp->addr.proto == htons(ETH_P_IP))
>>> +		ip_eth_mc_map(mp->addr.dst.ip4, mdb.addr);
>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
>>> +	else if (mp->addr.proto == htons(ETH_P_IPV6))
>>> +		ipv6_eth_mc_map(&mp->addr.dst.ip6, mdb.addr);
>>> +#endif
>>> +	else
>>> +		ether_addr_copy(mdb.addr, mp->addr.dst.mac_addr);
>>
>> How you would feel about re-using br_mdb_switchdev_host_port() here and
>> pass a 'type' value that is neither RTM_NEWDB nor RTM_DELDB just so you
>> don't have to duplicate that code here and we ensure it is in sync?
> 
> The trouble is that br_mdb_switchdev_host calls switchdev_port_obj_add,
> and I think the agreement was that replayed events should be a silent,
> one-to-one conversation via a direct call to the notifier block of the
> interested driver, as opposed to a call to the entire notifier chain
> which would make everybody else in the system see duplicates. This is
> the reason why I duplicated mostly everything.

It's not a whole lot of notification but if you passed a type argument
that is neither of the two supported value (say -1),
br_mdb_switchdev_host_port() would end its execution there, and that
would avoid the duplication altogether. I am not stuck on that idea and
can hardly think for now of why this function would change, or why the
switchdev_obj_port_mdb would change, too.
-- 
Florian

Powered by blists - more mailing lists