Re: [PATCH net-next v3 6/6] net: lan966x: Add switchdev support

Horatiu Vultur
2021-12-14T14:29:31Z

The 12/14/2021 00:01, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

Sorry for late reply, but I spend some time trying out your suggestions.

>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 10:24:50PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > The 12/13/2021 16:25, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 04:28:24PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > > The 12/13/2021 14:29, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 03:26:56PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > > > > > They are independent of each other. You deduce the interface on which
> > > > > > > the notifier was emitted using switchdev_notifier_info_to_dev() and act
> > > > > > > upon it, if lan966x_netdevice_check() is true. The notifier handling
> > > > > > > code itself is stateless, all the state is per port / per switch.
> > > > > > > If you register one notifier handler per switch, lan966x_netdevice_check()
> > > > > > > would return true for each notifier handler instance, and you would
> > > > > > > handle each event twice, would you not?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is correct, I will get the event twice which is a problem in the
> > > > > > lan966x. The function lan966x_netdevice_check should be per instance, in
> > > > > > this way each instance can filter the events.
> > > > > > The reason why I am putting the notifier_block inside lan966x is to be
> > > > > > able to get to the instance of lan966x even if I get a event that is not
> > > > > > for lan966x port.
> > > > >
> > > > > That isn't a problem, every netdevice notifier still sees all events.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that is correct.
> > > > Sorry maybe I am still confused, but some things are still not right.
> > > >
> > > > So lets say there are two lan966x instances(A and B) and each one has 2
> > > > ports(ethA0, ethA1, ethB0, ethB1).
> > > > So with the current behaviour, if for example ethA0 is added in vlan
> > > > 100, then we get two callbacks for each lan966x instance(A and B) because
> > > > each of them registered. And because of lan966x_netdevice_check() is true
> > > > for ethA0 will do twice the work.
> > > > And you propose to have a singleton notifier so we get only 1 callback
> > > > and will be fine for this case. But if you add for example the bridge in
> > > > vlan 200 then I will never be able to get to the lan966x instance which
> > > > is needed in this case.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "you add the bridge in vlan 200" with
> > > respect to netdevice notifiers. Create an 8021q upper with VID 200 on
> > > top of a bridge (as that would generate a NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER)?
> >
> > I meant the following:
> >
> > ip link add name brA type bridge
> > ip link add name brB type bridge
> > ip link set dev ethA0 master brA
> > ip link set dev ethA1 master brA
> > ip link set dev ethB0 master brB
> > ip link set dev ethB1 master brB
> > bridge vlan add dev brA vid 200 self
>
> Ok, so the same as this use case and patch posted by Florian for DSA:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/24/300
> we should be getting back to it some day.
>
> > After the last command both lan966x instances will get a switchdev blocking
> > event where event is SWITCHDEV_PORT_OBJ_ADD and obj->id is
> > SWITCHDEV_OBJ_ID_PORT_VLAN. And in this case the
> > switchdev_notifier_info_to_dev will return brA.
>
> It returns brA anyway. But the point being, your current code submission
> is something like this (of course, I had to fish these two functions
> from two different patches, because they still aren't properly split):
>
> static int lan966x_vlan_cpu_add_vlan_mask(struct lan966x *lan966x, u16 vid)
> {
> lan966x->vlan_mask[vid] |= BIT(CPU_PORT);
> return lan966x_vlan_set_mask(lan966x, vid);
> }
>
> static int lan966x_handle_port_vlan_add(struct net_device *dev,
> struct notifier_block *nb,
> const struct switchdev_obj_port_vlan *v)
> {
> struct lan966x_port *port;
> struct lan966x *lan966x;
>
> /* When adding a port to a vlan, we get a callback for the port but
> * also for the bridge. When get the callback for the bridge just bail
> * out. Then when the bridge is added to the vlan, then we get a
> * callback here but in this case the flags has set:
> * BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_BRENTRY. In this case it means that the CPU
> * port is added to the vlan, so the broadcast frames and unicast frames
> * with dmac of the bridge should be foward to CPU.
> */
> if (netif_is_bridge_master(dev) &&
> !(v->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_BRENTRY))
> return 0;
>
> lan966x = container_of(nb, struct lan966x, switchdev_blocking_nb);
>
> /* In case the port gets called */
> if (!(netif_is_bridge_master(dev))) {
> if (!lan966x_netdevice_check(dev))
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> port = netdev_priv(dev);
> return lan966x_vlan_port_add_vlan(port, v->vid,
> v->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID,
> v->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_UNTAGGED);
> }
>
> /* In case the bridge gets called */
> if (netif_is_bridge_master(dev))
> return lan966x_vlan_cpu_add_vlan(lan966x, dev, v->vid);
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In which way does this function call, exactly, check
> your lan966x's relationship to that bridge?
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> My point being, if you have two veth interfaces in your system just
> minding their own business and being put in an unrelated bridge, and
> that bridge would be put in VLAN 100 too, my understanding is that your
> lan966x driver would sniff that event and add its CPU port to VLAN 100
> too.

That is correct and my initial thought was to add something like this:

if (netif_is_bridge_master(dev) && lan966x->bridge != dev)
return 0;

> The reverse is true as well: any removal of a bridge from a VLAN
> would also cause your CPU port to stop being in that VLAN, no matter
> what interfaces may be in that VLAN. How could I say this... "spooky
> action at a distance".

But I don't need to do this if I use 'switchdev_handle_port_obj_add'

>
> > > If there's a netdevice event on a bridge, the singleton netdevice event
> > > handler can see if it is a bridge (netif_is_bridge_master), and if it
> > > is, it can crawl through the bridge's lower interfaces using
> > > netdev_for_each_lower_dev to see if there is any lan966x interface
> > > beneath it. If there isn't, nothing to do. Otherwise, you get the
> > > opportunity to do something for each port under that bridge.
> >
> > If I start to use switchdev_handle_port_obj_add, then as you mention
> > will get a callback for each interface under the port and then I need to
> > look in obj->orig_dev to see if it was a bridge or was a port that was
> > part of the bridge.
>
> Oh yes of course. And right now you don't need that because? You think
> you get notifications only of switchdev events emitted by bridges that
> you have a port in?

Actually I need it, it was just a comment.

>
> > If I don't use switchdev_handle_port_obj_add and implement own function
> > then there is no way to get to the lan966x instance.
>
> The switchdev_handle_port_obj_add() function isn't magic, and it has an
> actual public implementation, too. Sure you can get to the lan966x
> instance even if you don't use switchdev_handle_port_obj_add() -
> although, it is there for people to use it.

Yes, I can use switchdev_handle_port_obj_add and still get access to
bridge device and to lan966x instance.

>
> > I will get two callbacks but then they can be filtered based on the
> > bridge. If I use switchdev_handle_port_obj_add then if I have 2 ports
> > under the bridge, both ports will be called which will do the same
> > work anyway.
>
> And that's a good thing, if you actually think about how you design
> things to actually work. Please consider that you have two distinct
> events: you can join a bridge that is in a VLAN, or the bridge can join
> that VLAN while you have some ports under it. The invariant is that your
> CPU port needs to be in that VLAN only for as long as there is any port
> under that bridge. So it is actually beneficial to use the
> switchdev_handle_* helper. It tells you how many users of the CPU VLAN
> rule there still are. It would be broken to delete it right away, when a
> port leaves the bridge. It would also be broken to not delete it after
> all ports leave: the bridge may have a longer lifetime than the lan966x
> ports beneath them, so there may not be any deletion event that you
> should expect.

I have already some logic in the driver regarding this. To see how many
ports are part of a vlan and also in which vlan is the CPU.

>
> > So I am not sure how much I will benefit of using
> > switchdev_handle_port_obj_add in this case.
> >
> > One important observation in the driver is that I am separating these 2
> > cases:
> >
> > bridge vlan add dev brA vid 300 self
> > bridge vlan add dev ethA0 vid 400
>
> Understood, and that's ok. But I'm not convinced it works, though.

I think it would work :)

>
> > > Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to accomplish that's different?
> >
> > The reason is that I want to use brA to control the CPU port. To decide
> > which frames to be copy to the CPU. Also to copy as few as possible
> > frames to CPU.
> >
> > If we still want to go with the approach of using a singleton notifier
> > block, then we will still have a problem for netdevice notifier block.
> > We will get the same issue, can't get to lan966x instance in case the
> > lan966x callback is called for a different device. And we need this for
> > the following case:
> >
> > If for example eth0, eth1 are part of a different IP and eth2, eth3 are
> > part of lan966x. We would like not to be able to put under the same
> > bridge interfaces that are part of different IPs (more precisely,
> > lan966x interfaces can be only under a bridge where lan966x interfaces
> > are part).
> >
> > For example the following command should fail:
> > ip link add name br0 type bridge
> > ip link set dev eth0 master br0
> > ip link set dev eth2 master br0
> >
> > Also the this command should fail:
> > ip link add name br0 type bridge
> > ip link set dev eth2 master br0
> > ip link set dev eth0 master br0
> >
> > But the following should be accepted:
> > ip link add name br0 type bridge
> > ip link set dev eth0 master br0
> > ip link set dev eth1 master br0
> > ip link add name br1 type bridge
> > ip link set dev eth2 master br1
> > ip link set dev eth3 master br1
>
> You can track NETDEV_PRECHANGEUPPER and deny that, and also provide an
> extack with a reason. That should work, it's been tested.

Yes and that is what I was doing. But I had to keep a list of bridges to
see any of the bridges has any foreign interfaces. The problem was that
I kept the list on the lan966x instance, but that can be fixed easily
by making it static.

>
> > Maybe I should also make it explictly that is not allow to have more
> > than one instance of lan966x for now. And once is needed then add
> > support for it.
>
> I don't necessarily see the reason for this, but ok. I don't think you
> should view things as "support for parallel instances of the driver is
> what's complicating the implementation", but rather "catching the events
> in all the permutations that they can happen in is what this driver
> needs to provide a good user experience".

So long story short, I agree with your comments, I can make the
notifier_block as singleton objects and start to use
switchdev_handle_port_obj_add and the other variants.
In this way it should also work "parallel instances of the driver".

--
/Horatiu