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=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version; bh=AjcCl508/3oBfoVa+HHFPodqa5oQijS6CmLfzMEJ/u4=; b=RbgTHNgJumkKhypcVJzqThV2d98m5yX0RD5BZKNJlLmXSNgMuLiLI24cCu53Me2Y41 kFFJPAq2f+tJChxDH/EPhvnv5EnETOgWfdtGRGm2jijKSd2anzrZEG6GYmHaxxLEpNHE ki3QBs951g5pKa6JoS9uSl2NWDERGyfhhT3If/gClFoO0owTBcU+bW5dcSeiVNzrUQr+ GYah0ydJN+vLiU7DBBSjo7XlkmcB64QodtXu7Bsssvb0CTNrkR9OhyyK1KDFj5eWVPF2 pPfLPxmeUl/JtK3y93wMJRS2xBBYUgp6feZdgCppceRbeg881nn/wlcQSuETg3D0yCWL W3Nw== From: Hans Schultz In-Reply-To: <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> <20220322110806.kbdb362jf6pbtqaf@skbuf> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:21:58 +0100 Message-ID: <86ee2ujf61.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: Vladimir Oltean , 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 tis, mar 22, 2022 at 13:08, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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? > Yes, but that depends on the ATU entries ageing out. As it is now, it works. >> 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? No, I haven't looked deeper into it yet. Maybe I was hoping someone had an idea... but I guess it cannot be a netlink deadlock?