From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=9ZYK2bO0oPIhpErMM+q2xzW2Mm6s9oaP61Irqyq44+o=; b=Nvd7dfWXP+MA7dn8CeB7ApslVwt7Ch4qLfscmiSOHeFbaOF9/tK1poS1ifcMe3ghNg DnCEz0wXmVONAozXAWG/QpUZ4hiqnzDPu35fl+Oht/1JY2MNekzvFurIZPRK9t/7rxZS jQDTi9f0zRetFMQRsN1rLdQSRxaaGPNqka4iqCdbRHdX/PjP+gv6AxOPBUGud1P0psXO BCooV9cbBp7iFmg4K8E0k9YVVMJWkK8r3oJTpljeWkfSp9Y9W+mb7xk88H/CNd5BtcM3 SSlFK/VVUIZV5bVyZBvk+zDc7RNpT/k+MCpku+Wej43wkkN4k2xU3ruiYTp8mggUiK4h ez/w== Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 13:08:06 +0200 From: Vladimir Oltean Message-ID: <20220322110806.kbdb362jf6pbtqaf@skbuf> References: <20220317153625.2ld5zgtuhoxbcgvo@skbuf> <86ilscr2a4.fsf@gmail.com> <20220317161808.psftauoz5iaecduy@skbuf> <8635jg5xe5.fsf@gmail.com> <20220317172013.rhjvknre5w7mfmlo@skbuf> <86tubvk24r.fsf@gmail.com> <20220318121400.sdc4guu5m4auwoej@skbuf> <86pmmjieyl.fsf@gmail.com> <20220318131943.hc7z52beztqlzwfq@skbuf> <86a6dixnd2.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86a6dixnd2.fsf@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB implementation List-Id: Linux Ethernet Bridging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Hans Schultz Cc: Ivan Vecera , Andrew Lunn , Florian Fainelli , Jiri Pirko , Daniel Borkmann , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Nikolay Aleksandrov , bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vivien Didelot , Ido Schimmel , Roopa Prabhu , kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:01:13PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote: > On fre, mar 18, 2022 at 15:19, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:10:26PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote: > >> In the offloaded case there is no difference between static and dynamic > >> flags, which I see as a general issue. (The resulting ATU entry is static > >> in either case.) > > > > It _is_ a problem. We had the same problem with the is_local bit. > > Independently of this series, you can add the dynamic bit to struct > > switchdev_notifier_fdb_info and make drivers reject it. > > > >> These FDB entries are removed when link goes down (soft or hard). The > >> zero DPV entries that the new code introduces age out after 5 minutes, > >> while the locked flagged FDB entries are removed by link down (thus the > >> FDB and the ATU are not in sync in this case). > > > > Ok, so don't let them disappear from hardware, refresh them from the > > driver, since user space and the bridge driver expect that they are > > still there. > > I have now tested with two extra unmanaged switches (each connected to a > seperate port on our managed switch, and when migrating from one port to > another, there is member violations, but as the initial entry ages out, > a new miss violation occurs and the new port adds the locked entry. In > this case I only see one locked entry, either on the initial port or > later on the port the host migrated to (via switch). > > If I refresh the ATU entries indefinitly, then this migration will for > sure not work, and with the member violation suppressed, it will be > silent about it. Manual says that migrations should trigger miss violations if configured adequately, is this not the case? > So I don't think it is a good idea to refresh the ATU entries > indefinitely. > > Another issue I see, is that there is a deadlock or similar issue when > receiving violations and running 'bridge fdb show' (it seemed that > member violations also caused this, but not sure yet...), as the unit > freezes, not to return... Have you enabled lockdep, debug atomic sleep, detect hung tasks, things like that?