From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] NET: Re-add VLAN tag for devices incapable of keeping it Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:55:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4730FED5.20803@trash.net> References: <472A6089.7020104@hp.com> <18223.22291.622615.129374@zeus.sw.starentnetworks.com> <472F5A33.20906@trash.net> <20071105.151544.175839612.davem@davemloft.net> <472FB375.1020802@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , djohnson+linux-kernel@sw.starentnetworks.com, jes@trained-monkey.org, mchan@broadcom.com, ram.vepa@neterion.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, bguo@sw.starentnetworks.com To: Krzysztof Halasa Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:45196 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753750AbXKFXzM (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Nov 2007 18:55:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Patrick McHardy writes: > >> I think there is one more case that matters, which is briding >> from a device with VLAN stripping for a VLAN not configured >> locally. The tag will be stripped and will be lost for forwarded >> packets. > > I think we should drop such packets on RX. Anyway we shouldn't > forward them. I believe you misunderstand the configuration I was thinking about: eth0.1000 br0 | | eth0 with VLAN stripping Its slightly different that I thought though, __vlan_hwaccel_rx drops packets for unknown vids, so as soon as you configure a VLAN locally on the same device that is used for a bridge, no VLAN packets will be forwarded at all. Slightly inconsistent with how other layered devices work, but can be avoided by adding the VLAN to br0.