Re: [PATCH v2 net 4/4] bridge: Fix updating FDB entries when the PVID is applied

[Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@redhat.com>]

On 10/16/2013 11:57 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:07:16 +0900
> Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> We currently set the value that variable vid is pointing, which will be
>> used in FDB later, to 0 at br_allowed_ingress() when we receive untagged
>> or priority-tagged frames, even though the PVID is valid.
>> This leads to FDB updates in such a wrong way that they are learned with
>> VID 0.
>> Update the value to that of PVID if the PVID is applied.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
>> Reviewed-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   net/bridge/br_vlan.c | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_vlan.c b/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
>> index 5a9c44a..53f0990 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_vlan.c
>> @@ -217,6 +217,7 @@ bool br_allowed_ingress(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_port_vlans *v,
>>   		/* PVID is set on this port.  Any untagged or priority-tagged
>>   		 * ingress frame is considered to belong to this vlan.
>>   		 */
>> +		*vid = pvid;
>>   		if (likely(err))
>>   			/* Untagged Frame. */
>>   			__vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(skb, htons(ETH_P_8021Q), pvid);
>
>
> Ok, but side-effects seem like an indication of poor code logic
> flow design. Not your fault but part of the the per-vlan filtering code.
>

I'll see if I can re-work the code to get rid of the side-effects.

-vlad