All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com,
	bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, idosch@mellanox.com,
	jiri@mellanox.com, vivien.didelot@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Bridge] Correct PVID behavior with bridge's VLAN filtering on/off?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:20:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181216072029.GA27582@splinter> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5023d7cd-e5dc-88c9-4fc9-d40d8918c837@gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:52:08AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/12/18 1:02 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:48:21AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> Hi Nikolay, Roopa, Jiri, Ido,
> >>
> >> When a bridge has vlan_filtering=0 and notifies a switch driver through
> >> HOST_OBJ_MDB about MC addresses that the CPU/management port is
> >> interested in getting MC traffic for, I am seeing that the mdb->vid is
> >> set to 0 because br_allowed_ingress() checks for BROPT_VLAN_ENABLED
> >> which is now disabled and so we never populated *vid to anything but 0
> >> because the caller: br_handle_frame_finish() zeroed it out.
> > 
> > s/br_handle_frame_finish()/br_dev_xmit()/ ? Since you're talking about
> > HOST_OBJ_MDB
> 
> This affects the bridge ingress path as well, since I use HOST_OBJ_MDB
> to indicate whether the CPU port wants to receive multicast,
> transmitting multicast from the CPU port is almost never a problem. Is
> that a correct use of HOST_OBJ_MDB?

To the best of my knowledge, HOST_OBJ_MDB should be emitted for groups
the bridge itself would like to receive and this is triggered by the
transmission of IGMP membership reports through the bridge.

> 
> > 
> >> This creates a problem with the b53 DSA switch driver because in order
> >> to match the bridge's default_pvid, we did program the switch's "default
> >> tag" to be 1, which gets used for all untagged frames that ingress the
> >> switch (which AFAICT is correct behavior for PVID).
> > 
> > Not sure I'm following. If bridge is not VLAN-aware, then where do you
> > see 'default_pvid' being used?
> 
> A key detail I missed is that this is done with 4.9 (for now, in the
> process of forward porting fixes to net-next right now) which does not
> have this commit from Andrew:
> 
> 2ea7a679ca2abd251c1ec03f20508619707e1749 ("net: dsa: Don't add vlans
> when vlan filtering is disabled")
> 
> so the switch is actually VLAN aware, just it does not do strict VID
> violation enforcement policy, I like that behavior, but Jiri corrected
> me that this is not quite how it is defined.m.

If the Linux bridge is VLAN-aware, then the notification should be sent
with the PVID configured on the bridge port. Otherwise with VID 0.

> 
> > 
> >> Despite having turned off VLAN filtering in the switch such that it does
> >> allow ingress of packets with a VID that is not present in the VLAN
> >> table (violation), Multicast addresses do behave differently and we
> >> really must be strictly matching the programmed PVID in order for MC
> >> frames to ingress the switch even with VLAN filtering turned off.
> >>
> >> So with all that being written, should the bridge still be sending MDB
> >> notifications and use the bridge's default_pvid even with
> >> vlan_filtering=0? And if we did that, what use case could we be possibly
> >> breaking?
> >>
> >> Let me know if this is not clear so I can provide mode details.
> > 
> > I think you need to provide more details about the device you're working
> > with. I can explain what we're doing in mlxsw for reference.
> > 
> > When you use a VLAN-unaware bridge w/o VLAN devices, we make sure all
> > untagged packets get tagged with some arbitrary VLAN (now 1, soon 4095).
> > You never see this VLAN on the wire, since we remove it before sending
> > the packets. It is only used because all packets in the ASIC must be
> > tagged.
> > 
> > After we have a VLAN we classify the packet to a FID (bridge) and it
> > does {FID,DMAC} lookup in the FDB (MDB).
> > 
> > IIUC, your problem is that you also need to tag all the packets (you
> > used '1', can be something else), but then you program the MDB entry
> > according to the VLAN passed in the notification ('0') and not use
> > ('1'). We completely ignore the VID in this case and use the FID which
> > we lookup based on the ifindex of the bridge.
> > 
> 
> We do not have a concept of a FID with Broadcom switches, so we can
> either use a reserved VLAN ID to emulate that behavior and do individual
> MAC address learning which hashes into VID,MAC.
> 
> The switch has a "default 802.1Q tag" which gets used for untagged
> packets. Internally the switch normalizes all incoming frames (when
> 802.1Q is enabled) to have a double VLAN tag, and untagged frames get
> mapped to that "default 802.1Q/PVID tag" in the processing pipeline, and
> then when they ingress the destination switch port, they can get
> untagged again using the ingress port's "default 802.1Q/PVID tag" again.
> 
> The CPU port remains in the "default 802.1Q tag" set to 0, because that
> is also the configuration for non-bridge ports, and I need that to
> continue getting non-bridge ports to function normally and not be
> subjected to vlan_filtering = 1 being applied on the bridge (I will send
> a documentation patch that hopefully clarifies what the correct port
> behavior is and request feedback on that).
> 
> So here are essentially 3 things that could be fixed/tackled more or
> less independently:
> 
> - because vlan_filtering = 0, we have the HOST_OBJ_MDB request coming
> with mdb->vid = 0, which is expected with the current bridge code
> 
> - because the switch is made 802.1Q/VLAN aware, we have the ports that
> are bridge member configured with PVID = default_pvid (old kernel
> behavior, prior to Andrew's change), such that untagged frames show up
> untagged correctly at the network device level
> 
> - CPU/management port's default untagged VID is 0 which matches
> mdb->vid, but the bridged port, which is the ingress port for MC traffic
> is in VID 1 and where MC ingress filter checking is done. So there is a
> VID mismatch, and despite filtering being turned off, MC traffic does
> not evade that restriction (could be a misconfiguration on my side,
> could not find something that would allow it to just pass through).
> 
> With this one liner change both vlan_filtering states now work correctly
> with respect to MC:
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_vlan.c b/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
> index b6de4f457161..fe446e971456 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
> @@ -482,6 +482,7 @@ bool br_allowed_ingress(const struct net_bridge *br,
>          */
>         if (!br->vlan_enabled) {
>                 BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->vlan_filtered = false;
> +               *vid = br->default_pvid;

I don't believe this is correct. If bridge is not VLAN-aware, then PVID
is meaningless. Plus, untagged packets should be tagged with the PVID
configured on the bridge port, which is not necessarily 'default_pvid'.

In any case, it seems to me that your device requires certain
adjustments to correctly emulate the behavior of the Linux bridge. I
believe such changes belong in the relevant driver and not in the bridge
code.

>                 return true;
>         }
> 
> Or I suppose that I could just backport Andrew's patch and that would
> remove all VLAN awareness in the bridge, which would likely solve the
> problem as well, and/or find a way to make sure that MC flows do bypass
> VLAN filtering after all when vlan_filtering = 0.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> -- 
> Florian

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, roopa@cumulusnetworks.com,
	nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	jiri@mellanox.com, idosch@mellanox.com, andrew@lunn.ch,
	vivien.didelot@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Correct PVID behavior with bridge's VLAN filtering on/off?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:20:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181216072029.GA27582@splinter> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5023d7cd-e5dc-88c9-4fc9-d40d8918c837@gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:52:08AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 12/12/18 1:02 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:48:21AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> Hi Nikolay, Roopa, Jiri, Ido,
> >>
> >> When a bridge has vlan_filtering=0 and notifies a switch driver through
> >> HOST_OBJ_MDB about MC addresses that the CPU/management port is
> >> interested in getting MC traffic for, I am seeing that the mdb->vid is
> >> set to 0 because br_allowed_ingress() checks for BROPT_VLAN_ENABLED
> >> which is now disabled and so we never populated *vid to anything but 0
> >> because the caller: br_handle_frame_finish() zeroed it out.
> > 
> > s/br_handle_frame_finish()/br_dev_xmit()/ ? Since you're talking about
> > HOST_OBJ_MDB
> 
> This affects the bridge ingress path as well, since I use HOST_OBJ_MDB
> to indicate whether the CPU port wants to receive multicast,
> transmitting multicast from the CPU port is almost never a problem. Is
> that a correct use of HOST_OBJ_MDB?

To the best of my knowledge, HOST_OBJ_MDB should be emitted for groups
the bridge itself would like to receive and this is triggered by the
transmission of IGMP membership reports through the bridge.

> 
> > 
> >> This creates a problem with the b53 DSA switch driver because in order
> >> to match the bridge's default_pvid, we did program the switch's "default
> >> tag" to be 1, which gets used for all untagged frames that ingress the
> >> switch (which AFAICT is correct behavior for PVID).
> > 
> > Not sure I'm following. If bridge is not VLAN-aware, then where do you
> > see 'default_pvid' being used?
> 
> A key detail I missed is that this is done with 4.9 (for now, in the
> process of forward porting fixes to net-next right now) which does not
> have this commit from Andrew:
> 
> 2ea7a679ca2abd251c1ec03f20508619707e1749 ("net: dsa: Don't add vlans
> when vlan filtering is disabled")
> 
> so the switch is actually VLAN aware, just it does not do strict VID
> violation enforcement policy, I like that behavior, but Jiri corrected
> me that this is not quite how it is defined.m.

If the Linux bridge is VLAN-aware, then the notification should be sent
with the PVID configured on the bridge port. Otherwise with VID 0.

> 
> > 
> >> Despite having turned off VLAN filtering in the switch such that it does
> >> allow ingress of packets with a VID that is not present in the VLAN
> >> table (violation), Multicast addresses do behave differently and we
> >> really must be strictly matching the programmed PVID in order for MC
> >> frames to ingress the switch even with VLAN filtering turned off.
> >>
> >> So with all that being written, should the bridge still be sending MDB
> >> notifications and use the bridge's default_pvid even with
> >> vlan_filtering=0? And if we did that, what use case could we be possibly
> >> breaking?
> >>
> >> Let me know if this is not clear so I can provide mode details.
> > 
> > I think you need to provide more details about the device you're working
> > with. I can explain what we're doing in mlxsw for reference.
> > 
> > When you use a VLAN-unaware bridge w/o VLAN devices, we make sure all
> > untagged packets get tagged with some arbitrary VLAN (now 1, soon 4095).
> > You never see this VLAN on the wire, since we remove it before sending
> > the packets. It is only used because all packets in the ASIC must be
> > tagged.
> > 
> > After we have a VLAN we classify the packet to a FID (bridge) and it
> > does {FID,DMAC} lookup in the FDB (MDB).
> > 
> > IIUC, your problem is that you also need to tag all the packets (you
> > used '1', can be something else), but then you program the MDB entry
> > according to the VLAN passed in the notification ('0') and not use
> > ('1'). We completely ignore the VID in this case and use the FID which
> > we lookup based on the ifindex of the bridge.
> > 
> 
> We do not have a concept of a FID with Broadcom switches, so we can
> either use a reserved VLAN ID to emulate that behavior and do individual
> MAC address learning which hashes into VID,MAC.
> 
> The switch has a "default 802.1Q tag" which gets used for untagged
> packets. Internally the switch normalizes all incoming frames (when
> 802.1Q is enabled) to have a double VLAN tag, and untagged frames get
> mapped to that "default 802.1Q/PVID tag" in the processing pipeline, and
> then when they ingress the destination switch port, they can get
> untagged again using the ingress port's "default 802.1Q/PVID tag" again.
> 
> The CPU port remains in the "default 802.1Q tag" set to 0, because that
> is also the configuration for non-bridge ports, and I need that to
> continue getting non-bridge ports to function normally and not be
> subjected to vlan_filtering = 1 being applied on the bridge (I will send
> a documentation patch that hopefully clarifies what the correct port
> behavior is and request feedback on that).
> 
> So here are essentially 3 things that could be fixed/tackled more or
> less independently:
> 
> - because vlan_filtering = 0, we have the HOST_OBJ_MDB request coming
> with mdb->vid = 0, which is expected with the current bridge code
> 
> - because the switch is made 802.1Q/VLAN aware, we have the ports that
> are bridge member configured with PVID = default_pvid (old kernel
> behavior, prior to Andrew's change), such that untagged frames show up
> untagged correctly at the network device level
> 
> - CPU/management port's default untagged VID is 0 which matches
> mdb->vid, but the bridged port, which is the ingress port for MC traffic
> is in VID 1 and where MC ingress filter checking is done. So there is a
> VID mismatch, and despite filtering being turned off, MC traffic does
> not evade that restriction (could be a misconfiguration on my side,
> could not find something that would allow it to just pass through).
> 
> With this one liner change both vlan_filtering states now work correctly
> with respect to MC:
> 
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_vlan.c b/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
> index b6de4f457161..fe446e971456 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
> @@ -482,6 +482,7 @@ bool br_allowed_ingress(const struct net_bridge *br,
>          */
>         if (!br->vlan_enabled) {
>                 BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->vlan_filtered = false;
> +               *vid = br->default_pvid;

I don't believe this is correct. If bridge is not VLAN-aware, then PVID
is meaningless. Plus, untagged packets should be tagged with the PVID
configured on the bridge port, which is not necessarily 'default_pvid'.

In any case, it seems to me that your device requires certain
adjustments to correctly emulate the behavior of the Linux bridge. I
believe such changes belong in the relevant driver and not in the bridge
code.

>                 return true;
>         }
> 
> Or I suppose that I could just backport Andrew's patch and that would
> remove all VLAN awareness in the bridge, which would likely solve the
> problem as well, and/or find a way to make sure that MC flows do bypass
> VLAN filtering after all when vlan_filtering = 0.
> 
> Thanks for your patience.
> -- 
> Florian

  reply	other threads:[~2018-12-16  7:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-11 19:48 [Bridge] Correct PVID behavior with bridge's VLAN filtering on/off? Florian Fainelli
2018-12-11 19:48 ` Florian Fainelli
2018-12-12  9:02 ` [Bridge] " Ido Schimmel
2018-12-12  9:02   ` Ido Schimmel
2018-12-12 19:52   ` [Bridge] " Florian Fainelli
2018-12-12 19:52     ` Florian Fainelli
2018-12-16  7:20     ` Ido Schimmel [this message]
2018-12-16  7:20       ` Ido Schimmel
2018-12-15 18:10   ` [Bridge] " Florian Fainelli
2018-12-15 18:10     ` Florian Fainelli
2018-12-16  7:55     ` [Bridge] " Ido Schimmel
2018-12-16  7:55       ` Ido Schimmel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20181216072029.GA27582@splinter \
    --to=idosch@idosch.org \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=idosch@mellanox.com \
    --cc=jiri@mellanox.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com \
    --cc=roopa@cumulusnetworks.com \
    --cc=vivien.didelot@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.