[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d93d46d-c484-da0a-c12c-80e83eba31c9@blackwall.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2022 13:30:06 +0300
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
To: Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@...il.com>,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 1/4] net: bridge: add fdb flag to extent
locked port feature
On 02/06/2022 13:17, Hans Schultz wrote:
> On tor, jun 02, 2022 at 12:33, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org> wrote:
>> On 02/06/2022 12:17, Hans Schultz wrote:
>>> On tis, maj 31, 2022 at 17:23, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:34:21AM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
>
>>> Another issue is that
>>> bridge fdb add MAC dev DEV master static
>>> seems to add the entry with the SELF flag set, which I don't think is
>>> what we would want it to do or?
>>
>> I don't see such thing (hacked iproute2 to print the flags before cmd):
>> $ bridge fdb add 00:11:22:33:44:55 dev vnet110 master static
>> flags 0x4
>>
>> 0x4 = NTF_MASTER only
>>
>
> I also get 0x4 from iproute2, but I still get SELF entries when I look
> with:
> bridge fdb show dev DEV
>
after the above add:
$ bridge fdb show dev vnet110 | grep 00:11
00:11:22:33:44:55 master virbr0 static
>>> Also the replace command is not really supported properly as it is. I
>>> have made a fix for that which looks something like this:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
>>> index 6cbb27e3b976..f43aa204f375 100644
>>> --- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
>>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
>>> @@ -917,6 +917,9 @@ static int fdb_add_entry(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_bridge_port *source,
>>> if (flags & NLM_F_EXCL)
>>> return -EEXIST;
>>>
>>> + if (flags & NLM_F_REPLACE)
>>> + modified = true;
>>> +
>>> if (READ_ONCE(fdb->dst) != source) {
>>> WRITE_ONCE(fdb->dst, source);
>>> modified = true;
>>>
>>> The argument for always sending notifications to the driver in the case
>>> of replace is that a replace command will refresh the entries timeout if
>>> the entry is the same. Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> I don't think so. It always updates its "used" timer, not its "updated" timer which is the one
>> for expire. A replace that doesn't actually change anything on the entry shouldn't generate
>> a notification.
>
> Okay, so then there is missing checks on flags as the issue arose from
> replacing locked entries with dynamic entries. I will do another fix
> based on flags as modified needs to be true for the driver to get notified.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists