Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into hardware

[jamal <hadi@cyberus.ca>]

On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 07:13 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:

> The use case here is multiple VFs but the same solution should work with
> multiple PFs as well. FDB controls should be independent of how the ports
> are exposed VFs, PFs, VMDQ/queue pairs, macvlan, etc.

Makes sense.

> With events and ADD/DEL/GET FDB controls we can solve both cases. This also
> solves Roopa's case with macvlan where he wants to add additional addresses
> to macvlan ports.

Not familiar with that issue - I'll prowl the list.

> Yes it should flood here, unless its acting as a 802.1Qbg VEB or VEPA.

Ok. So there is a toggle somewhere which controls how flooding should
happen.

> 
> Maybe not. But the kernel already has the needed signals with one extra
> hook we can save running a daemon in user space. Maybe that's not a great
> argument to add kernel code though.

You make a reasonable arguement to have it in the kernel but i think we
win more if we separate the control. So while i empathize, I am hoping
that youd go with the path that is hard to travel ;->

> The PF_BRIDGE:RTM_GETNEIGH,RTM_NEWNEIGH,RTM_DELNEIGH are registered in the
> br_netlink_init() path. 

Hrm - hadnt paid attention to that before. Nasty.
The bridge seems to be hard-coding policy on station movement, no? 
This is a good example of the qualms i have on adding things to the
kernel;->
I may not want to auto update a MAC address moving ports as part of
some policy i have. I can go and add YAK (Yet Another Knob) - but where
is the line drawn?

cheers,
jamal