lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 net-next 04/11] net: bridge: offload initial and final port flags through switchdev
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 10:20:45PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 08:51:00PM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 05:19:29PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > So switchdev drivers operating in standalone mode should disable address
> > > learning. As a matter of practicality, we can reduce code duplication in
> > > drivers by having the bridge notify through switchdev of the initial and
> > > final brport flags. Then, drivers can simply start up hardcoded for no
> > > address learning (similar to how they already start up hardcoded for no
> > > forwarding), then they only need to listen for
> > > SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_PORT_BRIDGE_FLAGS and their job is basically done, no
> > > need for special cases when the port joins or leaves the bridge etc.
> >
> > How are you handling the case where a port leaves a LAG that is linked
> > to a bridge? In this case the port becomes a standalone port, but will
> > not get this notification.
>
> Apparently the answer to that question is "I delete the code that makes
> this use case work", how smart of me. Thanks.

Not sure how you expect to interpret this.

>
> Unless you have any idea how I could move the logic into the bridge, I
> guess I'm stuck with DSA and all the other switchdev drivers having this
> forest of corner cases to deal with. At least I can add a comment so I'm
> not tempted to delete it next time.

There are too many moving pieces with stacked devices. It is not only
LAG/bridge. In L3 you have VRFs, SVIs, macvlans etc. It might be better
to gracefully / explicitly not handle a case rather than pretending to
handle it correctly with complex / buggy code.

For example, you should refuse to be enslaved to a LAG that already has
upper devices such as a bridge. You are probably not handling this
correctly / at all. This is easy. Just a call to
netdev_has_any_upper_dev().

The reverse, during unlinking, would be to refuse unlinking if the upper
has uppers of its own. netdev_upper_dev_unlink() needs to learn to
return an error and callers such as team/bond need to learn to handle
it, but it seems patchable.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-10 02:19    [W:0.237 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site