From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
To: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@gmail.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Subject: Re: Port STP state after removing port from bridge
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:04:18 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E76912.3090203@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE4R7bAN7QrJcjUCbAJ86tb9YDNGJfYeq3fdqh-a3Xnc+4S+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
On 20/02/15 07:03, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:00 AM, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us> wrote:
>> Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 05:45:01AM CET, sfeldma@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> It just occured to me that the following sequence:
>>>>
>>>> brctl addbr br0
>>>> brctl addif br0 port0
>>>> ... STP happens
>>>> brctl delif br0 port0
>>>>
>>>> will leave port0 in STP disabled state, because the bridge code will
>>>> set the STP state to DISABLED, and only a down/up sequence can bring
>>>> it back to FORWARDING.
>>>>
>>>> Is this something that we should somehow fix? As an user it seems a
>>>> little convoluted having to do a down/up sequence to restore things. I
>>>> believe however that it is valid for the bridge layer to mark a port
>>>> as DISABLED when removing it. This is typically not noticed or even
>>>> remotely a problem with software bridges because we cannot enforce an
>>>> actual STP state at the HW level.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know your thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The fix in rocker would be:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> index 34389b6a..e2004fb 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/rocker/rocker.c
>>> @@ -4456,8 +4456,10 @@ static int rocker_port_bridge_leave(struct
>>> rocker_port *rocker_port)
>>> rocker_port_internal_vlan_id_get(rocker_port,
>>> rocker_port->dev->ifindex);
>>> err = rocker_port_vlan(rocker_port, 0, 0);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + return err;
>>>
>>> - return err;
>>> + return rocker_port_stp_update(rocker_port, BR_STATE_FORWARDING);
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> This will return the port back to it's initial state of
>>> BR_STATE_FORWARDING, after it's removed from the bridge.
>>>
>>> I'll include this patch in the rocker pile to be pushed later.
>>>
>>> -scott
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure, but wouldn't it be nicer it the bridge code would set
>> state to disabled before the port is removed from the bridge?
>
> When the port is removed from a bridge, for example with brctl delif,
> the bridge driver puts port in BR_STATE_DISABLED and then sends
> netdevice event NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER. In response to
> NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, the rocker driver is returning port back to
> BR_STATE_FORWARDING (the initial state for an un-bridged port). So
> this preserves bridge behavior for non-switchdev uses. Does this
> answer the question, or did I miss understand your question?
I think what we want is a solution at the bridge level, we have rocker
now updating the STP state to BR_STATE_FORWARDING when a given
rocker_port leaves a bridge, and I also had a similar change in DSA.
Something like this maybe (untested):
diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
index b087d278c679..d693a2a10b3c 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
@@ -242,6 +242,8 @@ static void del_nbp(struct net_bridge_port *p)
spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
br_stp_disable_port(p);
+ if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_SWITCH_OFFLOAD)
+ br_set_state(p, BR_STATE_FORWARDING);
spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock);
br_ifinfo_notify(RTM_DELLINK, p);
--
Florian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-20 17:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-19 4:39 Port STP state after removing port from bridge Florian Fainelli
2015-02-19 4:54 ` roopa
2015-02-19 5:00 ` Florian Fainelli
2015-02-19 5:28 ` roopa
2015-02-20 4:46 ` Scott Feldman
[not found] ` <CAE4R7bBSbwi93t05Z+rB2JgzFYdZ+m44AFSzU7JkwdHRWzz1Mw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-02-20 10:00 ` Jiri Pirko
2015-02-20 15:03 ` Scott Feldman
2015-02-20 17:04 ` Florian Fainelli [this message]
2015-02-21 19:43 ` Scott Feldman
2015-02-21 20:26 ` Florian Fainelli
2015-02-21 22:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-02-22 2:49 ` Scott Feldman
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=54E76912.3090203@gmail.com \
--to=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfeldma@gmail.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/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).