* If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' @ 2015-02-13 9:57 yzhu1 2015-02-13 10:00 ` yzhu1 2015-02-13 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: yzhu1 @ 2015-02-13 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue Hi, all I made this test on ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3,19-rc7: 1. brctl addbr br0 2. ifconfig br0 up 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') 4. brctl addif br0 eth0 5. brctl delif br0 eth0 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after the last sub-interface is removed. As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is removed? Thanks a lot. Zhu Yanjun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-13 9:57 If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' yzhu1 @ 2015-02-13 10:00 ` yzhu1 2015-02-13 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: yzhu1 @ 2015-02-13 10:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue, stephen@networkplumber.org >> Stephen Hemminger Add the maintainer of bridge. Any reply is appreciated. Zhu Yanjun On 02/13/2015 05:57 PM, yzhu1 wrote: > Hi, all > > I made this test on ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3,19-rc7: > > 1. brctl addbr br0 > > 2. ifconfig br0 up > > 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') > > 4. brctl addif br0 eth0 > > 5. brctl delif br0 eth0 > > 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') > > When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after > the last sub-interface is removed. > > As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is > removed? > > Thanks a lot. > Zhu Yanjun > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-13 9:57 If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' yzhu1 2015-02-13 10:00 ` yzhu1 @ 2015-02-13 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-02-15 7:49 ` Wu, Kuaikuai 2015-02-16 4:55 ` yzhu1 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2015-02-13 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yzhu1; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:57:45 +0800 yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> wrote: > Hi, all > > I made this test on ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3,19-rc7: > > 1. brctl addbr br0 > > 2. ifconfig br0 up > > 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') > > 4. brctl addif br0 eth0 > > 5. brctl delif br0 eth0 > > 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') > > When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after the > last sub-interface is removed. > > As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is > removed? This is intentional. If there are no active ports in bridge, then we want to tell applications that packets will go nowhere. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* RE: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-13 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger @ 2015-02-15 7:49 ` Wu, Kuaikuai 2015-02-16 4:55 ` yzhu1 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Wu, Kuaikuai @ 2015-02-15 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger, Zhu, Yanjun; +Cc: netdev, Tao, Yue Hi Stephen, When we up a bridge without sub-interfaces, it has "RUNNING" flag as below. Is it correct or not? 1. brctl addbr br0 2. ifconfig br0 up 3. ifconfig br0 br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr e6:6c:84:a6:fc:64 inet6 addr: fe80::e46c:84ff:fea6:fc64/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:2 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:168 (168.0 B) Best Regards Kuaikuai Wu -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 2:31 AM To: Zhu, Yanjun Cc: netdev; Wu, Kuaikuai; Tao, Yue Subject: Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:57:45 +0800 yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> wrote: > Hi, all > > I made this test on ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3,19-rc7: > > 1. brctl addbr br0 > > 2. ifconfig br0 up > > 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') > > 4. brctl addif br0 eth0 > > 5. brctl delif br0 eth0 > > 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') > > When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after > the last sub-interface is removed. > > As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is > removed? This is intentional. If there are no active ports in bridge, then we want to tell applications that packets will go nowhere. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-13 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-02-15 7:49 ` Wu, Kuaikuai @ 2015-02-16 4:55 ` yzhu1 2015-02-16 15:47 ` David Ahern ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: yzhu1 @ 2015-02-16 4:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 934 bytes --] Hi, Stephen Follow your advice, I made a new patch. This patch will turn off carrier when a new bridge interface is created. Please comment on it. Thanks a lot. Zhu Yanjun On 02/14/2015 02:30 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:57:45 +0800 > yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> wrote: > >> Hi, all >> >> I made this test on ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3,19-rc7: >> >> 1. brctl addbr br0 >> >> 2. ifconfig br0 up >> >> 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') >> >> 4. brctl addif br0 eth0 >> >> 5. brctl delif br0 eth0 >> >> 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') >> >> When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after the >> last sub-interface is removed. >> >> As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is >> removed? > This is intentional. If there are no active ports in bridge, then > we want to tell applications that packets will go nowhere. > > [-- Attachment #2: 0001-bridge-turn-off-carrier-when-the-bridge-is-created.patch --] [-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 998 bytes --] >From e03af5263bcaeea15442601e2a9f65c6b582352b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhu Yanjun <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:45:36 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] bridge: turn off carrier when the bridge is created When a bridge interface is created, there is no any sub interface in it. In this case, the packets should not go to this bridge interface. As such, carrier is turned off. Suggested-by: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> --- net/bridge/br_device.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/net/bridge/br_device.c b/net/bridge/br_device.c index ffd379d..2d60474 100644 --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c @@ -394,4 +394,9 @@ void br_dev_setup(struct net_device *dev) br_netfilter_rtable_init(br); br_stp_timer_init(br); br_multicast_init(br); + + /* Shutdown bridge to avoid packets */ + if (netif_carrier_ok(dev)) { + netif_carrier_off(dev); + } } -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-16 4:55 ` yzhu1 @ 2015-02-16 15:47 ` David Ahern 2015-02-16 16:51 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-02-16 16:52 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-03-10 6:07 ` yzhu1 2 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: David Ahern @ 2015-02-16 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yzhu1, Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue On 2/15/15 9:55 PM, yzhu1 wrote: >>> 1. brctl addbr br0 >>> >>> 2. ifconfig br0 up >>> >>> 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') >>> >>> 4. brctl addif br0 eth0 >>> >>> 5. brctl delif br0 eth0 >>> >>> 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') >>> >>> When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after the >>> last sub-interface is removed. I do not see that behavior with Fedora 21 and 3.18.5-201.fc21.x86_64. ie., after interface is removed br0 is still in up state. Perhaps a regression with 3.19. >>> >>> As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is >>> removed? >> This is intentional. If there are no active ports in bridge, then >> we want to tell applications that packets will go nowhere. It changes current behavior with respect to tcpdump. Today I can launch tcpdump on a bridge interface before starting a VM. With this change I will not be able to do that. David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-16 15:47 ` David Ahern @ 2015-02-16 16:51 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-02-17 16:14 ` Zhu, Yanjun 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2015-02-16 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ahern; +Cc: yzhu1, netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue Originally bridge code would start with carrier off, but there were users using bridge as a form of dummy device and this broke them. Therefore it was decided (like 5 yrs ago), that bridge should start with carrier on. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* RE: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-16 16:51 ` Stephen Hemminger @ 2015-02-17 16:14 ` Zhu, Yanjun 2015-02-25 2:55 ` yzhu1 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Zhu, Yanjun @ 2015-02-17 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger, David Ahern; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 759 bytes --] Hi, all We should make it compatible. So I made a patch to turn on carrier on this bridge interface when the last sub interface is removed. Hi, David Please make tests with this latest patch. Thanks a lot. Best Regards! Zhu Yanjun ________________________________________ From: Stephen Hemminger [stephen@networkplumber.org] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 8:51 AM To: David Ahern Cc: Zhu, Yanjun; netdev; Wu, Kuaikuai; Tao, Yue Subject: Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' Originally bridge code would start with carrier off, but there were users using bridge as a form of dummy device and this broke them. Therefore it was decided (like 5 yrs ago), that bridge should start with carrier on. [-- Attachment #2: 0001-bridge-turn-on-carrier-after-removing-the-last-sub-i.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --] From 0d16f302f23c9f5101f849450abc073045a193de Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Zhu Yanjun <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:59:08 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] bridge: turn on carrier after removing the last sub interface When the last sub interface is removed from the bridge, the bridge turn off the carrier. Maybe it is not compatible with firstly created bridge without any sub interface. At that time, the carrier of this bridge is turned on. Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> --- net/bridge/br_if.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c index ed307db..f391f8c 100644 --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c @@ -565,6 +565,12 @@ int br_del_if(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_device *dev) netdev_update_features(br->dev); + /* No sub interface in bridge, turn on carrier */ + if (list_empty(&br->port_list)) { + eth_hw_addr_random(br->dev); + netif_carrier_on(br->dev); + } + return 0; } -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-17 16:14 ` Zhu, Yanjun @ 2015-02-25 2:55 ` yzhu1 2015-02-25 4:23 ` David Ahern 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: yzhu1 @ 2015-02-25 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger, David Ahern; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue Hi, Stephen && David Any update? Zhu Yanjun On 02/18/2015 12:14 AM, Zhu, Yanjun wrote: > Hi, all > > We should make it compatible. So I made a patch to turn on carrier on this bridge interface when the last sub interface is removed. > > Hi, David > > Please make tests with this latest patch. Thanks a lot. > > Best Regards! > Zhu Yanjun > ________________________________________ > From: Stephen Hemminger [stephen@networkplumber.org] > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 8:51 AM > To: David Ahern > Cc: Zhu, Yanjun; netdev; Wu, Kuaikuai; Tao, Yue > Subject: Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' > > Originally bridge code would start with carrier off, > but there were users using bridge as a form of dummy device > and this broke them. Therefore it was decided (like 5 yrs ago), > that bridge should start with carrier on. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-25 2:55 ` yzhu1 @ 2015-02-25 4:23 ` David Ahern 2015-02-25 5:29 ` yzhu1 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: David Ahern @ 2015-02-25 4:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yzhu1, Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue On 2/24/15 7:55 PM, yzhu1 wrote: > Hi, Stephen && David > > Any update? As I mentioned in my last response I see no problem with the existing behavior -- 3.18, 3.19 and 4.0-rc1. With all of them the bridge stays in the running state after all interfaces are removed. David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-25 4:23 ` David Ahern @ 2015-02-25 5:29 ` yzhu1 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: yzhu1 @ 2015-02-25 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Ahern, Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue On 02/25/2015 12:23 PM, David Ahern wrote: > On 2/24/15 7:55 PM, yzhu1 wrote: >> Hi, Stephen && David >> >> Any update? > > As I mentioned in my last response I see no problem with the existing > behavior -- 3.18, 3.19 and 4.0-rc1. With all of them the bridge stays > in the running state after all interfaces are removed. > > David > > > Hi, David I made tests on kernel 3.19-rc7. 1. brctl addbr br0 2. ifconfig br0 up 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 0a:70:0b:06:34:8f inet6 addr: fe80::870:bff:fe06:348f/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:16 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:0 (0.0 B) TX bytes:5054 (5.0 KB) 4. brctl addif br0 eth1 5. brctl delif br0 eth1 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet6 addr: fe80::870:bff:fe06:348f/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:328 errors:0 dropped:5 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:19 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:39997 (39.9 KB) TX bytes:5760 (5.7 KB) Please compare with the outputs of step 3 and step 6, we can find the difference. uname: Linux wind-virtual-machine 3.19.0-rc7 #2 SMP Wed Jan 28 18:36:44 CST 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux So I think we should apply the latest patch to make consistent. Any reply is appreciated. Zhu Yanjun ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-16 4:55 ` yzhu1 2015-02-16 15:47 ` David Ahern @ 2015-02-16 16:52 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-03-10 6:07 ` yzhu1 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2015-02-16 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yzhu1; +Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:55:47 +0800 yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> wrote: > Hi, Stephen > > Follow your advice, I made a new patch. This patch will turn off > carrier when a new bridge interface is created. Please comment on it. > > Thanks a lot. > Zhu Yanjun NAK. We need to keep the current behavior to not break corner case users. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' 2015-02-16 4:55 ` yzhu1 2015-02-16 15:47 ` David Ahern 2015-02-16 16:52 ` Stephen Hemminger @ 2015-03-10 6:07 ` yzhu1 2 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: yzhu1 @ 2015-03-10 6:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: netdev, Wu, Kuaikuai, Tao, Yue, dsahern@gmail.com >> David Ahern Hi, Stephen && David Any update ? Best Regards! Zhu Yanjun On 02/16/2015 12:55 PM, yzhu1 wrote: > Hi, Stephen > > Follow your advice, I made a new patch. This patch will turn off > carrier when a new bridge interface is created. Please comment on it. > > Thanks a lot. > Zhu Yanjun > On 02/14/2015 02:30 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote: >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:57:45 +0800 >> yzhu1 <Yanjun.Zhu@windriver.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, all >>> >>> I made this test on ubuntu 14.04 with kernel 3,19-rc7: >>> >>> 1. brctl addbr br0 >>> >>> 2. ifconfig br0 up >>> >>> 3. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is with 'RUNNING') >>> >>> 4. brctl addif br0 eth0 >>> >>> 5. brctl delif br0 eth0 >>> >>> 6. ifconfig br0 (br0's status is without 'RUNNING') >>> >>> When there is no sub-interface, the flag "RUNNING" is missing after the >>> last sub-interface is removed. >>> >>> As such, should we keep "RUNNING" flag after the last sub-interface is >>> removed? >> This is intentional. If there are no active ports in bridge, then >> we want to tell applications that packets will go nowhere. >> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-03-10 6:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-02-13 9:57 If bridge have no sub-interfaces, it's status may be still with 'RUNNING' yzhu1 2015-02-13 10:00 ` yzhu1 2015-02-13 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-02-15 7:49 ` Wu, Kuaikuai 2015-02-16 4:55 ` yzhu1 2015-02-16 15:47 ` David Ahern 2015-02-16 16:51 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-02-17 16:14 ` Zhu, Yanjun 2015-02-25 2:55 ` yzhu1 2015-02-25 4:23 ` David Ahern 2015-02-25 5:29 ` yzhu1 2015-02-16 16:52 ` Stephen Hemminger 2015-03-10 6:07 ` yzhu1
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).