From: Mark Bloch <mbloch@nvidia.com>
To: Bernardo Soares <bsoares.it@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, saeedm@nvidia.com,
Vlad Buslov <vladbu@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] net/mlx5: Bridge, don't fail switchdev events of sibling eswitch ports
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2026 09:52:39 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <887bb829-6770-4431-934c-72ce9b799280@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260918095931.29792-2-bsoares.it@gmail.com>
On 18/09/2026 12:59, Bernardo Soares wrote:
> mlx5 registers the bridge offload switchdev notifiers once per eswitch
> instance, but the notifier chains are global, so every instance sees
> every event and must filter out the ones that aren't its own. The
> existing filter, mlx5_esw_bridge_dev_same_hw(), only checks that the
> event netdevice sits on the same HCA - intentional for merged eswitch,
> where one bridge can span representors of several eswitches on one
> HCA - but same-HCA doesn't mean the instance actually has that port:
> peer ports are only created reactively from NETDEV_CHANGEUPPER, so an
> instance brought up after a sibling PF's port was already enslaved has
> none. The port object and attribute handlers claim the event anyway
> once same-HW passes, then fail the port lookup and return -EINVAL,
> which gets reported to user space even though the owning instance
> already handled it (e.g. "bridge vlan add ... RTNETLINK answers:
> Invalid argument"). Fix by filtering on the tracked port instead.
>
> The same gap exists in the generic recursive lower-device walk used by
> attribute changes on a bridge with more than one representor enslaved
> directly: mlx5_esw_bridge_lower_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get() is entered
> with the bridge master netdevice, falls through to its generic
> netdev_for_each_lower_dev() loop, and returns as soon as the recursion
> into any one lower device yields a non-NULL rep - the underlying base
> case, mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(), only checks
> mlx5_esw_bridge_dev_same_hw(), not ownership by the calling instance's
> br_offloads. mlx5_esw_bridge_lag_rep_get(), used for the LAG-master
> case, already filters on mlx5_esw_bridge_dev_same_esw() per candidate
> and so cannot select a sibling's rep; it is not the source of this bug.
> On a merged-eswitch HCA with a bridge spanning representors of more
> than one eswitch instance directly, the walk can return a sibling's rep
> instead of continuing to the one the calling instance actually owns, so
> the attribute change fails the same way as above. Fix by checking
> mlx5_esw_bridge_port_exists() at the point each rep is picked, same as
> the previous fix did for the notifier filter.
>
> Fixes: c358ea1741bc ("net/mlx5: Bridge, allow merged eswitch connectivity")
> Signed-off-by: Bernardo Soares <bsoares.it@gmail.com>
> Cc: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@nvidia.com>
Thanks,
Reviewed-by: Mark Bloch <mbloch@nvidia.com>
Mark
> ---
> .../mellanox/mlx5/core/en/rep/bridge.c | 45 +++++++++++++++----
> .../ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.c | 6 +++
> .../ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.h | 2 +
> 3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/rep/bridge.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/rep/bridge.c
> index baac38bece14..4b7b0a0fc2b2 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/rep/bridge.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/rep/bridge.c
> @@ -85,9 +85,16 @@ mlx5_esw_bridge_lower_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(struct net_device *dev, struct m
> struct net_device *lower_dev;
> struct list_head *iter;
>
> - if (netif_is_lag_master(dev) || mlx5e_eswitch_rep(dev))
> - return mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(dev, esw, vport_num,
> - esw_owner_vhca_id);
> + if (netif_is_lag_master(dev) || mlx5e_eswitch_rep(dev)) {
> + struct net_device *rep;
> +
> + rep = mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(dev, esw, vport_num,
> + esw_owner_vhca_id);
> + if (rep && !mlx5_esw_bridge_port_exists(*vport_num, *esw_owner_vhca_id,
> + esw->br_offloads))
> + return NULL;
> + return rep;
> + }
>
> netdev_for_each_lower_dev(dev, lower_dev, iter) {
> struct net_device *rep;
> @@ -104,6 +111,28 @@ mlx5_esw_bridge_lower_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(struct net_device *dev, struct m
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static bool mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_port_lookup(struct net_device *dev,
> + struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads,
> + u16 *vport_num, u16 *esw_owner_vhca_id)
> +{
> + if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(dev, br_offloads->esw, vport_num,
> + esw_owner_vhca_id))
> + return false;
> +
> + return mlx5_esw_bridge_port_exists(*vport_num, *esw_owner_vhca_id, br_offloads);
> +}
> +
> +static bool mlx5_esw_bridge_lower_rep_port_lookup(struct net_device *dev,
> + struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads,
> + u16 *vport_num, u16 *esw_owner_vhca_id)
> +{
> + if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_lower_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(dev, br_offloads->esw, vport_num,
> + esw_owner_vhca_id))
> + return false;
> +
> + return mlx5_esw_bridge_port_exists(*vport_num, *esw_owner_vhca_id, br_offloads);
> +}
> +
> static bool mlx5_esw_bridge_is_local(struct net_device *dev, struct net_device *rep,
> struct mlx5_eswitch *esw)
> {
> @@ -218,8 +247,7 @@ mlx5_esw_bridge_port_obj_add(struct net_device *dev,
> u16 vport_num, esw_owner_vhca_id;
> int err;
>
> - if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(dev, br_offloads->esw, &vport_num,
> - &esw_owner_vhca_id))
> + if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_port_lookup(dev, br_offloads, &vport_num, &esw_owner_vhca_id))
> return 0;
>
> port_obj_info->handled = true;
> @@ -251,8 +279,7 @@ mlx5_esw_bridge_port_obj_del(struct net_device *dev,
> const struct switchdev_obj_port_mdb *mdb;
> u16 vport_num, esw_owner_vhca_id;
>
> - if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(dev, br_offloads->esw, &vport_num,
> - &esw_owner_vhca_id))
> + if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_rep_port_lookup(dev, br_offloads, &vport_num, &esw_owner_vhca_id))
> return 0;
>
> port_obj_info->handled = true;
> @@ -283,8 +310,8 @@ mlx5_esw_bridge_port_obj_attr_set(struct net_device *dev,
> u16 vport_num, esw_owner_vhca_id;
> int err = 0;
>
> - if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_lower_rep_vport_num_vhca_id_get(dev, br_offloads->esw, &vport_num,
> - &esw_owner_vhca_id))
> + if (!mlx5_esw_bridge_lower_rep_port_lookup(dev, br_offloads, &vport_num,
> + &esw_owner_vhca_id))
> return 0;
>
> port_attr_info->handled = true;
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.c
> index 87b5fd349594..ac90ccda1272 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.c
> @@ -1686,6 +1686,12 @@ int mlx5_esw_bridge_vport_peer_unlink(struct net_device *br_netdev, u16 vport_nu
> extack);
> }
>
> +bool mlx5_esw_bridge_port_exists(u16 vport_num, u16 esw_owner_vhca_id,
> + struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads)
> +{
> + return mlx5_esw_bridge_port_lookup(vport_num, esw_owner_vhca_id, br_offloads);
> +}
> +
> int mlx5_esw_bridge_port_vlan_add(u16 vport_num, u16 esw_owner_vhca_id, u16 vid, u16 flags,
> struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads,
> struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.h b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.h
> index d6f539161993..a4e59cc21089 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/esw/bridge.h
> @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ int mlx5_esw_bridge_vlan_proto_set(u16 vport_num, u16 esw_owner_vhca_id, u16 pro
> struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads);
> int mlx5_esw_bridge_mcast_set(u16 vport_num, u16 esw_owner_vhca_id, bool enable,
> struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads);
> +bool mlx5_esw_bridge_port_exists(u16 vport_num, u16 esw_owner_vhca_id,
> + struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads);
> int mlx5_esw_bridge_port_vlan_add(u16 vport_num, u16 esw_owner_vhca_id, u16 vid, u16 flags,
> struct mlx5_esw_bridge_offloads *br_offloads,
> struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-22 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-18 9:59 [PATCH net v4 0/2] net/mlx5: Bridge, fix remaining switchdev ownership gaps on merged eswitch Bernardo Soares
2026-09-18 9:59 ` [PATCH net v4 1/2] net/mlx5: Bridge, don't fail switchdev events of sibling eswitch ports Bernardo Soares
2026-09-22 6:52 ` Mark Bloch [this message]
2026-09-18 9:59 ` [PATCH net v4 2/2] net/mlx5: Bridge, don't fail unlink of untracked/unsupported peer ports Bernardo Soares
2026-09-22 6:52 ` Mark Bloch
2026-09-22 6:42 ` [PATCH net v4 0/2] net/mlx5: Bridge, fix remaining switchdev ownership gaps on merged eswitch Mark Bloch
2026-09-23 1:20 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=887bb829-6770-4431-934c-72ce9b799280@nvidia.com \
--to=mbloch@nvidia.com \
--cc=bsoares.it@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=saeedm@nvidia.com \
--cc=vladbu@nvidia.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