From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Cc: Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/7] net: mscc: ocelot: use the pvid of zero when bridged with vlan_filtering=0
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 09:47:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201102084720.GA7761@piout.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201031102916.667619-2-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Hello,
On 31/10/2020 12:29:10+0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Currently, mscc_ocelot ports configure pvid=0 in standalone mode, and
> inherit the pvid from the bridge when one is present.
>
> When the bridge has vlan_filtering=0, the software semantics are that
> packets should be received regardless of whether there's a pvid
> configured on the ingress port or not. However, ocelot does not observe
> those semantics today.
>
> Moreover, changing the PVID is also a problem with vlan_filtering=0.
> We are privately remapping the VID of FDB, MDB entries to the port's
> PVID when those are VLAN-unaware (i.e. when the VID of these entries
> comes to us as 0). But we have no logic of adjusting that remapping when
> the user changes the pvid and vlan_filtering is 0. So stale entries
> would be left behind, and untagged traffic will stop matching on them.
>
> And even if we were to solve that, there's an even bigger problem. If
> swp0 has pvid 1, and swp1 has pvid 2, and both are under a vlan_filtering=0
> bridge, they should be able to forward traffic between one another.
> However, with ocelot they wouldn't do that.
>
> The simplest way of fixing this is to never configure the pvid based on
> what the bridge is asking for, when vlan_filtering is 0. Only if there
> was a VLAN that the bridge couldn't mangle, that we could use as pvid....
> So, turns out, there's 0 just for that. And for a reason: IEEE
> 802.1Q-2018, page 247, Table 9-2-Reserved VID values says:
>
> The null VID. Indicates that the tag header contains only
> priority information; no VID is present in the frame.
> This VID value shall not be configured as a PVID or a member
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> of a VID Set, or configured in any FDB entry, or used in any
> Management operation.
>
> So, aren't we doing exactly what 802.1Q says not to? Well, in a way, but
> what we're doing here is just driver-level bookkeeping, all for the
> better. The fact that we're using a pvid of 0 is not observable behavior
> from the outside world: the network stack does not see the classified
> VLAN that the switch uses, in vlan_filtering=0 mode. And we're also more
> consistent with the standalone mode now.
>
IIRC, we are using pvid 1 because else bridging breaks when
CONFIG_VLAN_8021Q is not enabled. Did you test that configuration?
--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-02 8:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-31 10:29 [PATCH net-next 0/7] VLAN improvements for Ocelot switch Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 1/7] net: mscc: ocelot: use the pvid of zero when bridged with vlan_filtering=0 Vladimir Oltean
2020-11-02 8:47 ` Alexandre Belloni [this message]
2020-11-02 15:35 ` Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 2/7] net: mscc: ocelot: don't reset the pvid to 0 when deleting it Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 3/7] net: mscc: ocelot: transform the pvid and native vlan values into a structure Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 4/7] net: mscc: ocelot: add a "valid" boolean to struct ocelot_vlan Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 5/7] net: mscc: ocelot: move the logic to drop 802.1p traffic to the pvid deletion Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 6/7] net: mscc: ocelot: deny changing the native VLAN from the prepare phase Vladimir Oltean
2020-10-31 10:29 ` [PATCH net-next 7/7] net: dsa: felix: improve the workaround for multiple native VLANs on NPI port Vladimir Oltean
2020-11-03 1:10 ` [PATCH net-next 0/7] VLAN improvements for Ocelot switch Jakub Kicinski
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201102084720.GA7761@piout.net \
--to=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
--cc=UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=claudiu.manoil@nxp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vivien.didelot@gmail.com \
--cc=vladimir.oltean@nxp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).