lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 net-next 01/15] net: bridge: mst: Multiple Spanning Tree (MST) mode
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 01:56:53PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 01:43:46PM +0200, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > OK, thanks for confirming. Will send a patch later this week if Tobias
> > won't take care of it by then. First patch will probably be [1] to make
> > sure we dump the correct MST state to user space. It will also make it
> > easier to show the problem and validate the fix.
> >
> > [1]
> > diff --git a/net/bridge/br.c b/net/bridge/br.c
> > index 4f5098d33a46..f02a1ad589de 100644
> > --- a/net/bridge/br.c
> > +++ b/net/bridge/br.c
> > @@ -286,7 +286,7 @@ int br_boolopt_get(const struct net_bridge *br, enum br_boolopt_id opt)
> > case BR_BOOLOPT_MCAST_VLAN_SNOOPING:
> > return br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MCAST_VLAN_SNOOPING_ENABLED);
> > case BR_BOOLOPT_MST_ENABLE:
> > - return br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MST_ENABLED);
> > + return br_mst_is_enabled(br);
>
> Well, this did report the correct MST state despite the incorrect static
> branch state, no? The users of br_mst_is_enabled(br) are broken, not
> those of br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MST_ENABLED).

I should have said "actual"/"effective" instead of "correct". IMO, it's
better to use the same conditional in the both the data and control
paths to eliminate discrepancies. Without the patch, a user will see
that MST is supposedly enabled when it is actually disabled in the data
path.

>
> Anyway, I see there's a br_mst_is_enabled() and also a br_mst_enabled()?!
> One is used in the fast path and the other in the slow path. They should
> probably be merged, I guess. They both exist probably because somebody
> thought that the "if (!netif_is_bridge_master(dev))" test is redundant
> in the fast path.

The single user of br_mst_enabled() (DSA) is not affected by the bug
(only the SW data path is), so I suggest making this consolidation in
net-next after the bug is fixed. OK?

>
> > default:
> > /* shouldn't be called with unsupported options */
> > WARN_ON(1);
> > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_private.h b/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > index 75aff9bbf17e..7f0475f62d45 100644
> > --- a/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > +++ b/net/bridge/br_private.h
> > @@ -1827,7 +1827,7 @@ static inline bool br_vlan_state_allowed(u8 state, bool learn_allow)
> > /* br_mst.c */
> > #ifdef CONFIG_BRIDGE_VLAN_FILTERING
> > DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(br_mst_used);
> > -static inline bool br_mst_is_enabled(struct net_bridge *br)
> > +static inline bool br_mst_is_enabled(const struct net_bridge *br)
> > {
> > return static_branch_unlikely(&br_mst_used) &&
> > br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MST_ENABLED);
> > @@ -1845,7 +1845,7 @@ int br_mst_fill_info(struct sk_buff *skb,
> > int br_mst_process(struct net_bridge_port *p, const struct nlattr *mst_attr,
> > struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
> > #else
> > -static inline bool br_mst_is_enabled(struct net_bridge *br)
> > +static inline bool br_mst_is_enabled(const struct net_bridge *br)
> > {
> > return false;
> > }

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:33    [W:0.079 / U:0.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site