Re: [PATCH net-next] rocker: check for BRIDGE_FLAGS_SELF in bridge setlink handler

[John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>]

[...]

>
>> If this position is accepted, it would be best to enforce it, possibly in
>> rtnl_bridge_setlink().
>> My recollection is that others asked to preserve use-cases where SELF flag
>> is used for targeting port devices directly without using a bridge device.
>
> I know it is possible, and it is incorrect and hacky. But it is part of
> user api :/ I think we should not abuse this more in the future and
> rather make the api correct and use that.
>

Working my way through my backlog of email sorry for the days delay.

Jiri, are you suggesting it is incorrect to configure the hardware L2
independent of bridge device? There is absolutely use cases for this.

The case being we want the hardware to do L2 learning via fdb and then
when flows get 'trapped' into software we want to handle them
differently. Possibly send them onto a specific application for logging.

I'm at a loss around what use "really" running the bridge in software
is. There shouldn't be packets traversing the software path and if they
are being sent onto software I really can't think of any use case I
would want to run them through the software bridge. More likely I want
to run OVS or some equivalent controller-based software to forward them
"specially" to the correct software/controller/port.

My current use case is L2/L3 on the hardware, OVS and applications in
software. I don't think this is broken or hacky. This means no bridge
in software but programming the L2 bridge in hardware.

.John


-- 
John Fastabend         Intel Corporation