From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Cc: Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] net: mscc: ocelot: use the pvid of zero when bridged with vlan_filtering=0
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:47:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102084720.GA7761@piout.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201031102916.667619-2-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Hello,
On 31/10/2020 12:29:10+0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Currently, mscc_ocelot ports configure pvid=0 in standalone mode, and
> inherit the pvid from the bridge when one is present.
>
> When the bridge has vlan_filtering=0, the software semantics are that
> packets should be received regardless of whether there's a pvid
> configured on the ingress port or not. However, ocelot does not observe
> those semantics today.
>
> Moreover, changing the PVID is also a problem with vlan_filtering=0.
> We are privately remapping the VID of FDB, MDB entries to the port's
> PVID when those are VLAN-unaware (i.e. when the VID of these entries
> comes to us as 0). But we have no logic of adjusting that remapping when
> the user changes the pvid and vlan_filtering is 0. So stale entries
> would be left behind, and untagged traffic will stop matching on them.
>
> And even if we were to solve that, there's an even bigger problem. If
> swp0 has pvid 1, and swp1 has pvid 2, and both are under a vlan_filtering=0
> bridge, they should be able to forward traffic between one another.
> However, with ocelot they wouldn't do that.
>
> The simplest way of fixing this is to never configure the pvid based on
> what the bridge is asking for, when vlan_filtering is 0. Only if there
> was a VLAN that the bridge couldn't mangle, that we could use as pvid....
> So, turns out, there's 0 just for that. And for a reason: IEEE
> 802.1Q-2018, page 247, Table 9-2-Reserved VID values says:
>
> The null VID. Indicates that the tag header contains only
> priority information; no VID is present in the frame.
> This VID value shall not be configured as a PVID or a member
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> of a VID Set, or configured in any FDB entry, or used in any
> Management operation.
>
> So, aren't we doing exactly what 802.1Q says not to? Well, in a way, but
> what we're doing here is just driver-level bookkeeping, all for the
> better. The fact that we're using a pvid of 0 is not observable behavior
> from the outside world: the network stack does not see the classified
> VLAN that the switch uses, in vlan_filtering=0 mode. And we're also more
> consistent with the standalone mode now.
>
IIRC, we are using pvid 1 because else bridging breaks when
CONFIG_VLAN_8021Q is not enabled. Did you test that configuration?
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-02 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-31 10:29 [PATCH net-next 0/7] VLAN improvements for Ocelot switch Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 1/7] net: mscc: ocelot: use the pvid of zero when bridged with vlan_filtering=0 Vladimir Oltean
2020-11-02 8:47 ` Alexandre Belloni [this message]
2020-11-02 15:35 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 2/7] net: mscc: ocelot: don't reset the pvid to 0 when deleting it Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 3/7] net: mscc: ocelot: transform the pvid and native vlan values into a structure Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 4/7] net: mscc: ocelot: add a "valid" boolean to struct ocelot_vlan Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 5/7] net: mscc: ocelot: move the logic to drop 802.1p traffic to the pvid deletion Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: mscc: ocelot: deny changing the native VLAN from the prepare phase Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 7/7] net: dsa: felix: improve the workaround for multiple native VLANs on NPI port Vladimir Oltean
2020-11-03 1:10 ` [PATCH net-next 0/7] VLAN improvements for Ocelot switch Jakub Kicinski
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=20201102084720.GA7761@piout.net \
--to=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=claudiu.manoil@nxp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vivien.didelot@gmail.com \
--cc=vladimir.oltean@nxp.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.