[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8feee888-491a-9324-6437-07f33d0d5584@nbd.name>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 17:06:37 +0100
From: Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] net: bridge: add knob for filtering rx/tx BPDU packets
on a port
On 10.02.22 15:55, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 10/02/2022 16:24, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Some devices (e.g. wireless APs) can't have devices behind them be part of
>> a bridge topology with redundant links, due to address limitations.
>> Additionally, broadcast traffic on these devices is somewhat expensive, due to
>> the low data rate and wakeups of clients in powersave mode.
>> This knob can be used to ensure that BPDU packets are never sent or forwarded
>> to/from these devices
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
>> ---
>> include/linux/if_bridge.h | 1 +
>> include/uapi/linux/if_link.h | 1 +
>> net/bridge/br_forward.c | 5 +++++
>> net/bridge/br_input.c | 2 ++
>> net/bridge/br_netlink.c | 6 +++++-
>> net/bridge/br_stp_bpdu.c | 9 +++++++--
>> net/core/rtnetlink.c | 4 +++-
>> 7 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>
> Why can't netfilter or tc be used to filter these frames?
netfilter is slow as hell, and even adding a tc rule that has to look at
all frames to check for useless BPDU packets costs a lot more CPU cycles
than simply suppressing them at the source.
- Felix
Powered by blists - more mailing lists