On 15/06/03 (水) 4:01, Scott Feldman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:58 AM, roopa <ro...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
On 6/2/15, 7:30 AM, Scott Feldman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <j...@mojatatu.com> wrote:
On 06/02/15 03:10, Scott Feldman wrote:
Actually, we're now consistent with bridge man page which says master
is the default.
Want we want, I believe, is to adjust what the man page says (and the
bridge vlan command itself), by making the default master and self.
The kernel and driver are fine, it's the default in the bridge command
that needs adjusting. Once we do this, we'll be back to transparent
with software-only bridge.
Question to ask when looking at something of this nature:
Will it work with no suprises if you used today's unmodified app?
The default behavior shouldnt change and unfortunately it does here.
The default behavior does change, yes, but there shouldn't be any
surprises even if using today's unmodified app. The reason why is no
in-kernel driver is using ndo_bridge_setlink for VLAN setup. The
three drivers that have ndo_bridge_setlink use if to set hwmode to
VEBA|VEB. For VLAN setup, they use the (default master) bridge's
ndo_bridge_setlink->ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid. If the default changes from
master to master|self, the bridge's
ndo_bridge_setlink->ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid is still called for those
driver's using ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid, and if they implement
ndo_bridge_setlink, they'll get called a second time but will noop
because there will be no IFLA_BRIDGE_MODE (hwmode) attr to process.
So it comes down to two choices:
1) break ABI, which is inconsequential for in-kernel drivers and
preserve (iproute2) command transparency, or
2) embrace existing behavior which is consistent with man pages but
breaks command transparency for any driver implementing
ndo_bridge_setlink for VLAN setup, which currently is just rocker. I
can see the DSA going down this path also based on another concurrent
thread.
We're at option 2) right now.
It is not just iproute2 - since this is breaking ABI expectations.
Looking at some app i wrote a while back based on analyzing kernel
expectations at the time, I see the following logic:
user can set master or self on command line.
...
....
if (user DID NOT set master_on || user set self on)
then set self to on
iow, current behavior:
01: master is only set if user explicitly asked.
11: master|self when user explicitly sets both
10: self is on by default when the user doesnt specify anything
00: and the last option is to have none set which is not
possible since we have defaults.
cheers,
jamal
So this is very similar to iproute2 - if nothing is set
it defaults to self.
Ha, you're giving the behavior for "bridge fdb" command, where self is
the default.
Oh...i did not realize this was the case either. Thats unfortunate.
For "bridge link" and "bridge vlan", the default is master. The user
must explicitly specify "self" to act on the device side of the port.
It's unfortunate the iproute2 defaults aren't consistent between
commands. Maybe someone knows the history here and can explain.
scott, this brings back the discussion you and i had over the revert of my
patches.. (commit id's at the end of this email)...
which used to seamlessly offload to switchdev from bridge driver if the port
was a switch port (similar to stp state offload).
Your patch tried to do the same thing that the bridge's
ndo_bridge_setlink/dellink is doing which is using the handler for
MASTER to also set SELF stuff, when SELF was not specified. I don't
feel we should be overriding the application defaults in the kernel;
instead, we should change the application if we want different
behavior. The kernel should treat the two sides of the port
independent (that's the basic algo in rtnetlink.c handlers for
MASTER/SELF things). When you start doing kernel SELF things in the
MASTER path, the application has lost the ability to address each side
of the port independently.
'self' used to exist before switchdev infra came in. My suggestion was to
use it where required...but not build the switchdev api on the presence of
'self'. switchdev layer should be consistent across...all fib/fdb/neigh
layers.
I don't understand why you're bringing up fib/neigh because there is
no master|self form for those.
The master|self objects are bridge fdb, settings, and vlans. To be
clear, they are PF_BRIDGE handlers for:
PF_BRIDGE:RTM_NEWNEIGH: add fdb entry
PF_BRIDGE:RTM_DELNEIGH: del fdb entry
PF_BRIDGE:RTM_SETLINK: set bridge setting or add VLAN
PF_BRIDGE:RTM_DELLINK: del VLAN
The net/core/rtnetlink.c code for these _is_ consistent right now.
They all perform this same basic algorithm:
handler()
if (!flags || flags & MASTER)
if (master && master->op->foo)
master->op->foo();
if (flags & SELF)
if (port->op->foo)
port->op->foo();
This lets the application set MASTER and/or SELF to address one or
both sides of the port. The kernel only provides the mechanism; the
application decides which sides to address.
Where we got into trouble is in the case of
PF_BRIDGE:RTM_SETLINK/RTM_DELLINK where the master->op->foo handler
calls into the member port's ndo_vlan_rx_add_vid(), which is really a
SELF operation because it's setting the VLAN for the device-side of
the port. Setting the VLAN on the device side should have only been
done if SELF was specified.
Bridge's vlan_filtering is handled in master->op->foo(), not in
port->op->foo().
Can't we introduce another switchdev handler that performs MASTER
operation instead of calling SELF operation?
br_afspec()
nbp_vlan_add()
netdev_switch_port_vlan_add()
rocker->ndo_switch_port_vlan_add() <- only used for MASTER operation
I'm wondering why SELF operation (rocker->ndo_bridge_setlink()) does
what should be done in MASTER operation.
Toshiaki Makita
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
