Re: [PATCH net 0/4] bridge: Fix problems around the PVID

[Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2013-09-13 at 17:21 +0200, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:06:53PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> >On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 16:00 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> >> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 19:27:54 +0900
> >>
> >> > There seem to be some undesirable behaviors related with PVID.
> >> > 1. It has no effect assigning PVID to a port. PVID cannot be applied
> >> > to any frame regardless of whether we set it or not.
> >> > 2. FDB entries learned via frames applied PVID are registered with
> >> > VID 0 rather than VID value of PVID.
> >> > 3. We can set 0 or 4095 as a PVID that are not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q.
> >> > This leads interoperational problems such as sending frames with VID
> >> > 4095, which is not allowed in IEEE 802.1Q, and treating frames with VID
> >> > 0 as they belong to VLAN 0, which is expected to be handled as they have
> >> > no VID according to IEEE 802.1Q.
> >> >
> >> > Note: 2nd and 3rd problems are potential and not exposed unless 1st problem
> >> > is fixed, because we cannot activate PVID due to it.
> >>
> >> Please work out the issues in patch #2 with Vlad and resubmit this
> >> series.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >
> >I'm hovering between whether we should fix the issue by changing vlan 0
> >interface behavior in 8021q module or enabling a bridge port to sending
> >priority-tagged frames, or another better way.
> 
> Take a look at how was it done for bonding - it just goes through the list
> of attached vlan devs, and doesn't care about vlan0 (which can, btw, exist
> technically). I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for, but worth a
> try.
> 
> bond_arp_send_all() might be a good starting point.

Thanks a lot.
I looked over it and took it that bonding driver doesn't send any arp
probe as a priority-tagged frame even if the routing table tells that
the outgoing interface to reach the arp target is bond0.0.

If we seek to take a similar way with bonding, we might be able to
simply ignore vlan 0 interface, or incoming priority-tagged frames.
I'm, however, afraid that it may be undesirable in view of
interoperability.

Anyway, thank you again for your suggestion.
I'm going to think a bit more about the issue and rearrange the patch
set.

Thanks,

Toshiaki Makita

> 
> >
> >If you could comment it, I'd appreciate it :)
> >
> >
> >BTW, I think what is discussed in patch #2 is another problem about
> >handling priority-tags, and it exists without this patch set applied.
> >It looks like that we should prepare another patch set than this to fix
> >that problem.
> >
> >Should I include patches that fix the priority-tags problem in this
> >patch set and resubmit them all together?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Toshiaki Makita
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html