netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch,
	vivien.didelot@gmail.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com,
	olteanv@gmail.com, roopa@nvidia.com, nikolay@nvidia.com,
	jiri@resnulli.us, stephen@networkplumber.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 2/9] net: bridge: Disambiguate offload_fwd_mark
Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 10:49:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h7jknqwn.fsf@waldekranz.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YI6+kQxjCcnYmwkx@shredder>

On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 18:00, Ido Schimmel <idosch@idosch.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 07:04:04PM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
>> - skb->cb->offload_fwd_mark becomes skb->cb->src_hwdom. There is a
>>   slight change here: Whereas previously this was only set for
>>   offloaded packets, we now always track the incoming hwdom. As all
>>   uses where already gated behind checks of skb->offload_fwd_mark,
>>   this will not introduce any functional change, but it paves the way
>>   for future changes where the ingressing hwdom must be known both for
>>   offloaded and non-offloaded frames.
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -43,15 +43,15 @@ int nbp_switchdev_mark_set(struct net_bridge_port *p)
>>  void nbp_switchdev_frame_mark(const struct net_bridge_port *p,
>>  			      struct sk_buff *skb)
>>  {
>> -	if (skb->offload_fwd_mark && !WARN_ON_ONCE(!p->offload_fwd_mark))
>> -		BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->offload_fwd_mark = p->offload_fwd_mark;
>> +	if (p->hwdom)
>> +		BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->src_hwdom = p->hwdom;
>>  }
>
> I assume you are referring to this change? "src_hwdom" sounds weird if
> it's expected to be valid for non-offloaded frames.

Perhaps "non-offloaded" was a sloppy description on my part. I was
trying to describe frames that originate from a switchdev, but have not
been forwarded by hardware; e.g. STP BPDUs, IGMP reports, etc. So
nbp_switchdev_frame_mark now basically says: "If this skb came in from a
switchdev, make sure to note which one".

> Can you elaborate about "future changes where the ingressing hwdom must
> be known both for offloaded and non-offloaded frames"?

Typical example: The switchdev has a fixed configuration to trap STP
BPDUs, but STP is not running on the bridge and the group_fwd_mask
allows them to be forwarded. Say we have this setup:

      br0
    /  |  \
swp0 swp1 swp2

A BPDU comes in on swp0 and is trapped to the CPU; the driver does not
set skb->offload_fwd_mark. The bridge determines that the frame should
be forwarded to swp{1,2}. It is imperative that forward offloading is
_not_ allowed in this case, as the source hwdom is already "poisoned".

Recording the source hwdom allows this case to be handled properly.

> Probably best to split this change to a different patch given the rest
> of the changes are mechanical.

Right, but I think the change in name to warrants a change in
semantics. It is being renamed to src_hwdom because it now holds just
that information. Again, there is no functional change introduced by
this since nbp_switchdev_allowed_egress always checks for the presence
of skb->offload_fwd_mark anyway. But if you feel strongly about it, I
will split it up.

>>  
>>  bool nbp_switchdev_allowed_egress(const struct net_bridge_port *p,
>>  				  const struct sk_buff *skb)
>>  {
>>  	return !skb->offload_fwd_mark ||
>> -	       BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->offload_fwd_mark != p->offload_fwd_mark;
>> +	       BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->src_hwdom != p->hwdom;
>>  }
>>  
>>  /* Flags that can be offloaded to hardware */
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>> 

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-03  8:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-26 17:04 [RFC net-next 0/9] net: bridge: Forward offloading Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 1/9] net: dfwd: Constrain existing users to macvlan subordinates Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 2/9] net: bridge: Disambiguate offload_fwd_mark Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-02 15:00   ` Ido Schimmel
2021-05-03  8:49     ` Tobias Waldekranz [this message]
2021-05-05  7:39       ` Ido Schimmel
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 3/9] net: bridge: switchdev: Recycle unused hwdoms Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-27 10:42   ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 4/9] net: bridge: switchdev: Forward offloading Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-27 10:35   ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-04-28 22:47     ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-29  9:16       ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2021-04-29 14:55         ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-02 15:04   ` Ido Schimmel
2021-05-03  8:53     ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-06 11:01       ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 5/9] net: dsa: Track port PVIDs Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-26 19:40   ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-04-26 20:05     ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-26 20:28       ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-04-27  9:12         ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-27  9:27           ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-04-27 10:07           ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-04-28 23:10             ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 6/9] net: dsa: Forward offloading Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-27 10:17   ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-05-04 14:44     ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-04 15:21       ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-05-04 20:07         ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-04 20:33           ` Andrew Lunn
2021-05-04 21:24             ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-04 20:58           ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-05-04 22:12             ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-04 23:04               ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-05-05  9:01                 ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-05 16:12                   ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 7/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Allocate a virtual DSA port for each bridge Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 8/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Map virtual bridge port in PVT Tobias Waldekranz
2021-04-26 17:04 ` [RFC net-next 9/9] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Forward offloading Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-02 14:58 ` [RFC net-next 0/9] net: bridge: " Ido Schimmel
2021-05-03  9:44   ` Tobias Waldekranz
2021-05-06 10:59     ` Vladimir Oltean

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=87h7jknqwn.fsf@waldekranz.com \
    --to=tobias@waldekranz.com \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
    --cc=idosch@idosch.org \
    --cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nikolay@nvidia.com \
    --cc=olteanv@gmail.com \
    --cc=roopa@nvidia.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=vivien.didelot@gmail.com \
    /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).