From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veaceslav Falico Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/4] bridge: Fix problems around the PVID Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:21:14 +0200 Message-ID: <20130913152114.GD695@redhat.com> References: <1378808874.3988.2.camel@ubuntu-vm-makita> <20130912.160033.779509034953932316.davem@davemloft.net> <1379074013.1678.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: David Miller , makita.toshiaki@lab.ntt.co.jp, vyasevic@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao , Patrick McHardy To: Toshiaki Makita Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1987 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753428Ab3IMPXY (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:23:24 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1379074013.1678.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 >> 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. > >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