From: Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 01/13] net: bridge: add control of bum flooding to bridge itself
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:51:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k0bt9uq9.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99b0790a-9746-ea08-b57e-52c53436666d@blackwall.org>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 21:27, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org> wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 16:38, Joachim Wiberg wrote:
>> @@ -526,6 +526,10 @@ void br_dev_setup(struct net_device *dev)
>> br->bridge_ageing_time = br->ageing_time = BR_DEFAULT_AGEING_TIME;
>> dev->max_mtu = ETH_MAX_MTU;
>> + br_opt_toggle(br, BROPT_UNICAST_FLOOD, 1);
> This one must be false by default. It changes current default behaviour.
> Unknown unicast is not currently passed up to the bridge if the port is
> not in promisc mode, this will change it. You'll have to make it consistent
> with promisc (e.g. one way would be for promisc always to enable unicast flood
> and it won't be possible to be disabled while promisc).
Ouch, my bad! Will look into how to let this have as little impact as
possible. I like your semantics there, promisc should always win.
>> + br_opt_toggle(br, BROPT_MCAST_FLOOD, 1);
>> + br_opt_toggle(br, BROPT_BCAST_FLOOD, 1);
>
> s/1/true/ for consistency
Of course, thanks!
>> @@ -118,7 +118,8 @@ int br_handle_frame_finish(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb
>> /* by definition the broadcast is also a multicast address */
>> if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest)) {
>> pkt_type = BR_PKT_BROADCAST;
>> - local_rcv = true;
>> + if (br_opt_get(br, BROPT_BCAST_FLOOD))
>> + local_rcv = true;
>> } else {
>> pkt_type = BR_PKT_MULTICAST;
>> if (br_multicast_rcv(&brmctx, &pmctx, vlan, skb, vid))
>> @@ -161,12 +162,16 @@ int br_handle_frame_finish(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb
>> }
>> mcast_hit = true;
>> } else {
>> - local_rcv = true;
>> - br->dev->stats.multicast++;
>> + if (br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MCAST_FLOOD)) {
>> + local_rcv = true;
>> + br->dev->stats.multicast++;
>> + }
>> }
>> break;
>> case BR_PKT_UNICAST:
>> dst = br_fdb_find_rcu(br, eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest, vid);
>> + if (!dst && br_opt_get(br, BROPT_UNICAST_FLOOD))
>> + local_rcv = true;
>> break;
>
> This adds new tests for all fast paths for host traffic, especially
> the port - port communication which is the most critical one. Please
> at least move the unicast test to the "else" block of "if (dst)"
> later.
OK, will fix!
> The other tests can be moved to host only code too, but would require
> bigger changes. Please try to keep the impact on the fast-path at
> minimum.
Interesting, you mean by speculatively setting local_rcv = true and
postpone the decsion to br_pass_frame_up(), right? Yeah that would
indeed be a bit more work.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 01/13] net: bridge: add control of bum flooding to bridge itself
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:51:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k0bt9uq9.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99b0790a-9746-ea08-b57e-52c53436666d@blackwall.org>
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 21:27, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org> wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 16:38, Joachim Wiberg wrote:
>> @@ -526,6 +526,10 @@ void br_dev_setup(struct net_device *dev)
>> br->bridge_ageing_time = br->ageing_time = BR_DEFAULT_AGEING_TIME;
>> dev->max_mtu = ETH_MAX_MTU;
>> + br_opt_toggle(br, BROPT_UNICAST_FLOOD, 1);
> This one must be false by default. It changes current default behaviour.
> Unknown unicast is not currently passed up to the bridge if the port is
> not in promisc mode, this will change it. You'll have to make it consistent
> with promisc (e.g. one way would be for promisc always to enable unicast flood
> and it won't be possible to be disabled while promisc).
Ouch, my bad! Will look into how to let this have as little impact as
possible. I like your semantics there, promisc should always win.
>> + br_opt_toggle(br, BROPT_MCAST_FLOOD, 1);
>> + br_opt_toggle(br, BROPT_BCAST_FLOOD, 1);
>
> s/1/true/ for consistency
Of course, thanks!
>> @@ -118,7 +118,8 @@ int br_handle_frame_finish(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb
>> /* by definition the broadcast is also a multicast address */
>> if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest)) {
>> pkt_type = BR_PKT_BROADCAST;
>> - local_rcv = true;
>> + if (br_opt_get(br, BROPT_BCAST_FLOOD))
>> + local_rcv = true;
>> } else {
>> pkt_type = BR_PKT_MULTICAST;
>> if (br_multicast_rcv(&brmctx, &pmctx, vlan, skb, vid))
>> @@ -161,12 +162,16 @@ int br_handle_frame_finish(struct net *net, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb
>> }
>> mcast_hit = true;
>> } else {
>> - local_rcv = true;
>> - br->dev->stats.multicast++;
>> + if (br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MCAST_FLOOD)) {
>> + local_rcv = true;
>> + br->dev->stats.multicast++;
>> + }
>> }
>> break;
>> case BR_PKT_UNICAST:
>> dst = br_fdb_find_rcu(br, eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest, vid);
>> + if (!dst && br_opt_get(br, BROPT_UNICAST_FLOOD))
>> + local_rcv = true;
>> break;
>
> This adds new tests for all fast paths for host traffic, especially
> the port - port communication which is the most critical one. Please
> at least move the unicast test to the "else" block of "if (dst)"
> later.
OK, will fix!
> The other tests can be moved to host only code too, but would require
> bigger changes. Please try to keep the impact on the fast-path at
> minimum.
Interesting, you mean by speculatively setting local_rcv = true and
postpone the decsion to br_pass_frame_up(), right? Yeah that would
indeed be a bit more work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-13 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-11 13:38 [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 00/13] net: bridge: forwarding of unknown IPv4/IPv6/MAC BUM traffic Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 01/13] net: bridge: add control of bum flooding to bridge itself Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 18:27 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 18:27 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 20:29 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 20:29 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 9:51 ` Joachim Wiberg [this message]
2022-04-13 9:51 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-13 9:58 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 9:58 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 10:09 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-13 10:09 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 02/13] net: bridge: rename br_switchdev_set_port_flag() to .._dev_flag() Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 03/13] net: bridge: minor refactor of br_setlink() for readability Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 18:36 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 18:36 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 9:22 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-13 9:22 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 04/13] net: bridge: netlink support for controlling BUM flooding to bridge Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 18:24 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 18:24 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 10:04 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-13 10:04 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 05/13] selftests: forwarding: add TCPDUMP_EXTRA_FLAGS to lib.sh Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 17:20 ` [Bridge] " Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-11 17:20 ` Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-12 7:39 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 7:39 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 06/13] selftests: forwarding: multiple instances in tcpdump helper Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 17:26 ` [Bridge] " Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-11 17:26 ` Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 07/13] selftests: forwarding: new test, verify bridge flood flags Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 20:21 ` [Bridge] " Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-11 20:21 ` Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-12 7:55 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 7:55 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 13:40 ` [Bridge] " Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-12 13:40 ` Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 08/13] net: bridge: avoid classifying unknown multicast as mrouters_only Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 13:59 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 13:59 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 17:27 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 17:27 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 17:37 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-12 17:37 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 8:51 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-13 8:51 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-13 8:55 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 8:55 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 9:00 ` [Bridge] " Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 9:00 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2022-04-13 10:12 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-13 10:12 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 09/13] selftests: forwarding: rename test groups for next bridge mdb tests Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 20:23 ` [Bridge] " Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-11 20:23 ` Vladimir Oltean
2022-04-12 7:57 ` [Bridge] " Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-12 7:57 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 10/13] selftests: forwarding: verify flooding of unknown multicast Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 11/13] selftests: forwarding: verify strict mdb fwd of known multicast Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 12/13] selftests: forwarding: verify strict filtering doesn't leak Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` [Bridge] [PATCH RFC net-next 13/13] selftests: forwarding: verify flood of known mc on mcast_router port Joachim Wiberg
2022-04-11 13:38 ` Joachim Wiberg
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=87k0bt9uq9.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=troglobit@gmail.com \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=razor@blackwall.org \
--cc=roopa@nvidia.com \
--cc=tobias@waldekranz.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.