Re: switchdev and VLAN ranges

[Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>]

Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 12:36:26PM CEST, nikolay@cumulusnetworks.com wrote:
>On 10/10/2015 09:49 AM, Elad Raz wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 10, 2015, at 2:30 AM, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have two concerns in mind:
>>>
>>> a) if we imagine that drivers like Rocker allocate memory in the prepare
>>> phase for each VID, preparing a range like 100-4000 would definitely not
>>> be recommended.
>>>
>>> b) imagine that you have two Linux bridges on a switch, one using the
>>> hardware VLAN 100. If you request the VLAN range 99-101 for the other
>>> bridge members, it is not possible for the driver to say "I can
>>> accelerate VLAN 99 and 101, but not 100". It must return OPNOTSUPP for
>>> the whole range.
>> 
>> Another concern I have with vid_being..vid_end range is the “flags”. Where flags can be BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID.
>> There is no sense having more than one VLAN as a PVID.
>> This leave the HW vendor the choice which VLAN id they will use as the PVID.
>> 
>
>iproute2 doesn't allow to do it but I can see that someone can actually make it
>so the flags for the range have it and it doesn't look correct. Perhaps we need
>something like the patch below to enforce this from kernel-side.
>
>
>diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>index d78b4429505a..02b17b53e9a6 100644
>--- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>+++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>@@ -524,6 +524,9 @@ static int br_afspec(struct net_bridge *br,
> 			if (vinfo_start)
> 				return -EINVAL;
> 			vinfo_start = vinfo;
>+			/* don't allow range of pvids */
>+			if (vinfo_start->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID)
>+				return -EINVAL;
> 			continue;
> 		}
> 

Looks correct to me. Could you please submit this properly? Thanks!