On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ido Schimmel <ido...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 08:14:24PM IDT, sfel...@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Vivien Didelot
>><vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct. Wednesday 14 (42) 09:14 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>>>> Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 05:32:26PM IDT, vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >On Oct. Tuesday 13 (42) 11:31 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>>>> >> Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 08:36:25PM IDT,
>>>> >> vivien.dide...@savoirfairelinux.com wrote:
>>>> >> >Hi guys,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >On Oct. Monday 12 (42) 02:01 PM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>>> >> >> From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> We shouldn't allow BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID flag in VLAN ranges.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <niko...@cumulusnetworks.com>
>>>> >> >> ---
>>>> >> >> net/switchdev/switchdev.c | 3 +++
>>>> >> >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> diff --git a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>>>> >> >> index 6e4a4f9ad927..256c596de896 100644
>>>> >> >> --- a/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>>>> >> >> +++ b/net/switchdev/switchdev.c
>>>> >> >> @@ -720,6 +720,9 @@ static int switchdev_port_br_afspec(struct
>>>> >> >> net_device *dev,
>>>> >> >> if (vlan.vid_begin)
>>>> >> >> return -EINVAL;
>>>> >> >> vlan.vid_begin = vinfo->vid;
>>>> >> >> + /* don't allow range of pvids */
>>>> >> >> + if (vlan.flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID)
>>>> >> >> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> >> >> } else if (vinfo->flags &
>>>> >> >> BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_END) {
>>>> >> >> if (!vlan.vid_begin)
>>>> >> >> return -EINVAL;
>>>> >> >> --
>>>> >> >> 2.4.3
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >Yes the patch looks good, but it is a minor check though. I hope the
>>>> >> >subject of this thread is making sense.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >VLAN ranges seem to have been included for an UX purpose (so commands
>>>> >> >look like Cisco IOS). We don't want to change any existing interface,
>>>> >> >so
>>>> >> >we pushed that down to drivers, with the only valid reason that, maybe
>>>> >> >one day, an hardware can be capable of programming a range on a
>>>> >> >per-port
>>>> >> >basis.
>>>> >> Hi,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's actually what we are doing in mlxsw. We can do up to 256 entries
>>>> >> in
>>>> >> one go. We've yet to submit this part.
>>>> >
>>>> >Perfect Ido, thanks for pointing this out! I'm OK with the range then.
>>>> >
>>>> >So there is now a very last question in my head for this, which is more
>>>> >a matter of kernel design. Should the user be aware of such underlying
>>>> >support? In other words, would it make sense to do this in a driver:
>>>> >
>>>> > foo_port_vlan_add(struct net_device *dev,
>>>> > struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan *vlan)
>>>> > {
>>>> > if (vlan->vid_begin != vlan->vid_end)
>>>> > return -ENOTSUPP; /* or something more relevant for user */
>>>> >
>>>> > return foo_port_single_vlan_add(dev, vlan->vid_begin);
>>>> > }
>>>> >
>>>> >So drivers keep being simple, and we can easily propagate the fact that
>>>> >one-or-all VLAN is not supportable, vs. the VLAN feature itself is not
>>>> >implemented and must be done in software.
>>>> I think that if you want to keep it simple, then Scott's advice from the
>>>> previous thread is the most appropriate one. I believe the hardware you
>>>> are using is simply not meant to support multiple 802.1Q bridges.
>>>
>>> You mean allowing only one Linux bridge over an hardware switch?
>>>
>>> It would for sure simplify how, as developers and users, we represent a
>>> physical switch. But I am not sure how to achieve that and I don't have
>>> strong opinions on this TBH.
>>
>>Hi Vivien, I think it's possible to keep switch ports on just one
>>bridge if we do a little bit of work on the NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER
>>notifier. This will give you the driver-level control you want. Do
>>you have time to investigate? The idea is:
>>
>>1) In your driver's handler for NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, if switch port is
>>being added to a second bridge,then return NOTIFY_BAD. Your driver
>>needs to track the bridge count.
>>
>>2) In __netdev_upper_dev_link(), check the return code from the
>>call_netdevice_notifiers_info(NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, ...) call, and if
>>NOTIFY_BAD, abort the linking operation (goto rollback_xxx).
>>
> Hi,
>
> We are doing something similar in mlxsw (not upstream yet). Jiri
> introduced PRE_CHANGEUPPER, which is called from the function you
> mentioned, but before the linking operation (so that you don't need to
> rollback).
Oh, cool.
> If the notification is about a linking operation and the master is a
> bridge different than the current one, then NOTIFY_BAD is returned.
So you're wanting to restrict to just one bridge also? Or is
NOTIFY_BAD returned for some other reason? I guess I should be
patient and wait for the patch.
--
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
