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=Wb2ma3uVeIWnLHFtR3kKOKEIt80yrxzBwcG4cgGN60c=; b=mHSjbQq+OgyRwkqECYu3nqz5ujv01cV7cVXHUmooouQxNKsFWEUB4s48v5dviHz9Yd wBNrq5OIK0l2Lrh/4XmltSFrCs3Xvi7JTxfWj62cCOb0hQy0lSLzhCLOyuN881QCjJ+j YliwuttuJ4nuFGCdYsQoeawBMgz9neTb/DTmwE3WI//X98k9NoSvnmq9n9hl+DgR1RuU 2EXvCywQEvcQK6VIKGAUFRHzLPUNy69o1hDrKTLjMsHVKCwS6WM6+xDX595GinO9ubbL URUnRL8fTTOM/Cc2Y1Wvf4akOeL6bE13ryIiTrDbw2TlyonSk2MmqzLNbJq9X/0Qc6jW 3cfg== From: Hans Schultz In-Reply-To: <86ee2ujf61.fsf@gmail.com> 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> <86ee2ujf61.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:47:05 +0100 Message-ID: <86r16u6o46.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: Hans Schultz , 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 14:21, Hans Schultz wrote: > 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... I have now verified that it is only on miss violations that the problem occurs, so it seems that there is a deadlock (with 'bridge fdb show') somehow with the nl lock that the handling of ATU miss violations acquires. >> >> 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?