Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] Allow bridge to function in non-promisc mode

[Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@redhat.com>]

On 03/07/2013 12:13 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:35:37 -0500
> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/07/2013 02:19 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> I understand the desire to add more functionality, but in this case it
>>> would introduce lots more problems. STP would break and it doesn't seem to
>>> gain anything that can't be done by other means.
>>>
>>> Turning bridge into macvlan seems unnecessary. Combining apples and bananas
>>> doesn't always make a tasty smoothy, sometimes it is just a mess.
>>>
>>> Maybe adding a little more to macvlan to do what you want would be simpler.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's not really a macvlan over the bridge.  I would agree that
>> particular setup would be a bit odd.  This work enables VMs to manage
>> their mac addresses and to reduce the load on the host by keeping the
>> bridge in promisc mode.
>>
>> Sadly, most kvm network configs still use bridging and have not
>> transitioned to OVS.  macvlan has some limitations as well and I working
>> to address those, but there is a desire for non-promisc bridge.  In
>> this case VMs can manage their mac addresses and can write that data to
>> the bridge.
>>
>> STP is not broken as STP uses multicast mac and we set IFF_ALLMULTI thus
>> continuing to receive and process STP BPDUs.
>>
>> The one thing that would appear to suffer from this is VLAN reception,
>> but the bridge does allow vlan config now and that would have to be
>> configured if VMs wish to use vlans.
>>
>> I am not changing default operation of the bridge.  Default is still
>> promisc.  In fact, one can switch back and forth without any network
>> outages.  This simply adds another mode the the bridge operation.
>>
>
> 1. I am not a fan of the added complexity.

These patches are very simple and don't impact bridge operations.

> 2, Don't use sysfs for new API's use netlink instead.

Ok, I can remove the sysfs uplink interface.

> 3. It depends on the uplink port providing UNICAST filtering which some
>     physical devices don't do.
>

If the physical device doesn't provide filtering, it will be placed in 
promiscuous mode.  So, it essentially reverts back to the old behavior.
However, on devices that do support unicast filtering, there is a win.

-vlad