Date:   Fri, 18 Mar 2022 08:58:11 +0100
From:   Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Mattias Forsblad <mattias.forsblad@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Mattias Forsblad <mattias.forsblad+netdev@...il.com>,
        Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@...il.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] bridge: dsa: switchdev: mv88e6xxx:
 Implement local_receive bridge flag

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 16:05, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
> Hello Tobias,
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 10:04:09PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 09:14, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On 3/1/2022 4:31 AM, Mattias Forsblad wrote:
>> >> Greetings,
>> >> 
>> >> This series implements a new bridge flag 'local_receive' and HW
>> >> offloading for Marvell mv88e6xxx.
>> >> 
>> >> When using a non-VLAN filtering bridge we want to be able to limit
>> >> traffic to the CPU port to lessen the CPU load. This is specially
>> >> important when we have disabled learning on user ports.
>> >> 
>> >> A sample configuration could be something like this:
>> >> 
>> >>         br0
>> >>        /   \
>> >>     swp0   swp1
>> >> 
>> >> ip link add dev br0 type bridge stp_state 0 vlan_filtering 0
>> >> ip link set swp0 master br0
>> >> ip link set swp1 master br0
>> >> ip link set swp0 type bridge_slave learning off
>> >> ip link set swp1 type bridge_slave learning off
>> >> ip link set swp0 up
>> >> ip link set swp1 up
>> >> ip link set br0 type bridge local_receive 0
>> >> ip link set br0 up
>> >> 
>> >> The first part of the series implements the flag for the SW bridge
>> >> and the second part the DSA infrastructure. The last part implements
>> >> offloading of this flag to HW for mv88e6xxx, which uses the
>> >> port vlan table to restrict the ingress from user ports
>> >> to the CPU port when this flag is cleared.
>> >
>> > Why not use a bridge with VLAN filtering enabled? I cannot quite find it 
>> > right now, but Vladimir recently picked up what I had attempted before 
>> > which was to allow removing the CPU port (via the bridge master device) 
>> > from a specific group of VLANs to achieve that isolation.
>> >
>> 
>> Hi Florian,
>> 
>> Yes we are aware of this work, which is awesome by the way! For anyone
>> else who is interested, I believe you are referring to this series:
>> 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220215170218.2032432-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/
>> 
>> There are cases though, where you want a TPMR-like setup (or "dumb hub"
>> mode, if you will) and ignore all tag information.
>> 
>> One application could be to use a pair of ports on a switch as an
>> ethernet extender/repeater for topologies that span large physical
>> distances. If this repeater is part of a redundant topology, you'd to
>> well to disable learning, in order to avoid dropping packets when the
>> surrounding active topology changes. This, in turn, will mean that all
>> flows will be classified as unknown unicast. For that reason it is very
>> important that the CPU be shielded.
>
> So have you seriously considered making the bridge ports that operate in
> 'dumb hub' mode have a pvid which isn't installed as a 'self' entry on
> the bridge device?

Just so there's no confusion, you mean something like...

    ip link add dev br0 type bridge vlan_filtering 1 vlan_default_pvid 0

    for p in swp0 swp1; do
        ip link set dev $p master br0
        bridge vlan add dev $p vid 1 pvid untagged
    done

... right?

In that case, the repeater is no longer transparent with respect to
tagged packets, which the application requires.

>> You might be tempted to solve this using flooding filters of the
>> switch's CPU port, but these go out the window if you have another
>> bridge configured, that requires that flooding of unknown traffic is
>> enabled.
>
> Not if CPU flooding can be managed on a per-user-port basis.

True, but we aren't lucky enough to have hardware that can do that :)

>> Another application is to create a similar setup, but with three ports,
>> and have the third one be used as a TAP.
>
> Could you expand more on this use case?

Its just the standard use-case for a TAP really. You have some link of
interest that you want to snoop, but for some reason there is no way of
getting a PCAP from the station on either side:

   Link of interest
          |
.-------. v .-------.
| Alice +---+  Bob  |
'-------'   '-------'

So you insert a hub in the middle, and listen on a third port:

.-------.   .-----.   .-------.
| Alice +---+ TAP +---+  Bob  |
'-------'   '--+--'   '-------'
               |
 PC running tcpdump/wireshark

The nice thing about being able to set this up in Linux is that if your
hardware comes with a mix of media types, you can dynamically create the
TAP for the job at hand. E.g. if Alice and Bob are communicating over a
fiber, but your PC only has a copper interface, you can bridge to fiber
ports with one copper; if you need to monitor a copper link 5min later,
you just swap out the fiber ports for two copper ports.

>> >> Reviewed-by: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
>> >
>> > I don't believe this tag has much value since it was presumably carried 
>> > over from an internal review. Might be worth adding it publicly now, though.
>> 
>> I think Mattias meant to replicate this tag on each individual
>> patch. Aside from that though, are you saying that a tag is never valid
>> unless there is a public message on the list from the signee? Makes
>> sense I suppose. Anyway, I will send separate tags for this series.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists