From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>
To: Johannes Nixdorf <jnixdorf-oss@avm.de>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@rempel-privat.de>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 5/6] net: bridge: Add a configurable default FDB learning limit
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 13:19:44 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50814314-55a3-6cff-2e9e-2abf93fa5f1b@blackwall.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZQv5aNbgqxCuOKyr@u-jnixdorf.ads.avm.de>
On 9/21/23 11:06, Johannes Nixdorf wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 02:00:27PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> On 9/19/23 11:12, Johannes Nixdorf wrote:
>>> Add a Kconfig option to configure a default FDB learning limit system
>>> wide, so a distributor building a special purpose kernel can limit all
>>> created bridges by default.
>>>
>>> The limit is only a soft default setting and overrideable on a per bridge
>>> basis using netlink.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Nixdorf <jnixdorf-oss@avm.de>
>>> ---
>>> net/bridge/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++++++
>>> net/bridge/br_device.c | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/Kconfig b/net/bridge/Kconfig
>>> index 3c8ded7d3e84..c0d9c08088c4 100644
>>> --- a/net/bridge/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/net/bridge/Kconfig
>>> @@ -84,3 +84,16 @@ config BRIDGE_CFM
>>> Say N to exclude this support and reduce the binary size.
>>> If unsure, say N.
>>> +
>>> +config BRIDGE_DEFAULT_FDB_MAX_LEARNED
>>> + int "Default FDB learning limit"
>>> + default 0
>>> + depends on BRIDGE
>>> + help
>>> + Sets a default limit on the number of learned FDB entries on
>>> + new bridges. This limit can be overwritten via netlink on a
overwritten doesn't sound good, how about This limit can be set (or changed)
>>> + per bridge basis.
>>> +
>>> + The default of 0 disables the limit.
>>> +
>>> + If unsure, say 0.
>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_device.c b/net/bridge/br_device.c
>>> index 9a5ea06236bd..3214391c15a0 100644
>>> --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c
>>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c
>>> @@ -531,6 +531,8 @@ 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->fdb_max_learned = CONFIG_BRIDGE_DEFAULT_FDB_MAX_LEARNED;
>>> +
>>> br_netfilter_rtable_init(br);
>>> br_stp_timer_init(br);
>>> br_multicast_init(br);
>>>
>>
>> This one I'm not sure about at all. Distributions can just create the bridge
>> with a predefined limit. This is not flexible and just adds
>> one more kconfig option that is rather unnecessary. Why having a kconfig
>> knob is better than bridge creation time limit setting? You still have
>> to create the bridge, so why not set the limit then?
>
> The problem I'm trying to solve here are unaware applications. Assuming
> this change lands in the next Linux release there will still be quite
> some time until the major applications that create bridges (distribution
> specific or common network management tools, the container solution of
> they day, for embedded some random vendor tools, etc.) will pick it
> up. In this series I chose a default of 0 to not break existing setups
> that rely on some arbitrary amount of FDB entries, so those unaware
> applications will create bridges without limits. I added the Kconfig
> setting so someone who knows their use cases can still set a more fitting
> default limit.
>
> More specifically to our use case as an embedded vendor that builds their
> own kernels and knows they have no use case that requires huge FDB tables,
> the kernel config allows us to set a safe default limit before starting
> to teach all our applications and our upstream vendors' code about the
> new netlink attribute. As this patch is relatively simple, we can also
> keep it downstream if there is opposition to it here though.
I'm not strongly against, just IMO it is unnecessary. I won't block the
set because of this, but it would be nice to get input from others as
well. If you can recompile your kernel to set a limit, it should be
easier to change your app to set the same limit via netlink, but I'm not
familiar with your use case.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-21 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-09-19 8:12 [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 0/6] bridge: Add a limit on learned FDB entries Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-19 8:12 ` [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 1/6] net: bridge: Set BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER early in fdb_add_entry Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-20 10:44 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-21 12:13 ` Ido Schimmel
2023-09-19 8:12 ` [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] net: bridge: Set strict_start_type for br_policy Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-20 10:46 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-21 7:23 ` Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-21 10:14 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-22 12:18 ` Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-19 8:12 ` [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 3/6] net: bridge: Track and limit dynamically learned FDB entries Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-20 10:49 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-26 11:22 ` Ido Schimmel
2023-09-19 8:12 ` [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 4/6] net: bridge: Add netlink knobs for number / max " Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-20 10:50 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-21 7:29 ` Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-21 12:41 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-21 12:51 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-19 8:12 ` [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 5/6] net: bridge: Add a configurable default FDB learning limit Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-20 11:00 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2023-09-21 8:06 ` Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-21 10:19 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov [this message]
2023-09-26 11:42 ` Ido Schimmel
2023-09-19 8:12 ` [Bridge] [PATCH net-next v4 6/6] selftests: forwarding: bridge_fdb_learning_limit: Add a new selftest Johannes Nixdorf
2023-09-20 11:01 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
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=50814314-55a3-6cff-2e9e-2abf93fa5f1b@blackwall.org \
--to=razor@blackwall.org \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=jnixdorf-oss@avm.de \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rempel-privat.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=roopa@nvidia.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox