To be able to add dynamic FDB entries to drivers from userspace, the
dynamic flag must be added when sending RTM_NEWNEIGH events down.
Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <netdev@kapio-technology.com>
---
include/net/switchdev.h | 1 +
net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
index ca0312b78294..aaf918d4ba67 100644
--- a/include/net/switchdev.h
+++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
@@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info {
u8 added_by_user:1,
is_local:1,
locked:1,
+ is_dyn:1,
offloaded:1;
};
diff --git a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
index 7eb6fd5bb917..60c05a00a1df 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
@@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ static void br_switchdev_fdb_populate(struct net_bridge *br,
item->added_by_user = test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER, &fdb->flags);
item->offloaded = test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &fdb->flags);
item->is_local = test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags);
+ item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
item->locked = false;
item->info.dev = (!p || item->is_local) ? br->dev : p->dev;
item->info.ctx = ctx;
--
2.34.1On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:57:10PM +0100, Hans J. Schultz wrote:
> To be able to add dynamic FDB entries to drivers from userspace, the
> dynamic flag must be added when sending RTM_NEWNEIGH events down.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <netdev@kapio-technology.com>
> ---
> include/net/switchdev.h | 1 +
> net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
> index ca0312b78294..aaf918d4ba67 100644
> --- a/include/net/switchdev.h
> +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
> @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info {
> u8 added_by_user:1,
> is_local:1,
> locked:1,
> + is_dyn:1,
> offloaded:1;
> };
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
> index 7eb6fd5bb917..60c05a00a1df 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ static void br_switchdev_fdb_populate(struct net_bridge *br,
> item->added_by_user = test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER, &fdb->flags);
> item->offloaded = test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &fdb->flags);
> item->is_local = test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags);
> + item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any
further interpretations up to the consumer?
> item->locked = false;
> item->info.dev = (!p || item->is_local) ? br->dev : p->dev;
> item->info.ctx = ctx;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
On 2023-01-18 00:08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 07:57:10PM +0100, Hans J. Schultz wrote:
>> To be able to add dynamic FDB entries to drivers from userspace, the
>> dynamic flag must be added when sending RTM_NEWNEIGH events down.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <netdev@kapio-technology.com>
>> ---
>> include/net/switchdev.h | 1 +
>> net/bridge/br_switchdev.c | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/net/switchdev.h b/include/net/switchdev.h
>> index ca0312b78294..aaf918d4ba67 100644
>> --- a/include/net/switchdev.h
>> +++ b/include/net/switchdev.h
>> @@ -249,6 +249,7 @@ struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info {
>> u8 added_by_user:1,
>> is_local:1,
>> locked:1,
>> + is_dyn:1,
>> offloaded:1;
>> };
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
>> index 7eb6fd5bb917..60c05a00a1df 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_switchdev.c
>> @@ -136,6 +136,7 @@ static void br_switchdev_fdb_populate(struct
>> net_bridge *br,
>> item->added_by_user = test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER, &fdb->flags);
>> item->offloaded = test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &fdb->flags);
>> item->is_local = test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags);
>> + item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags);
>
> Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any
> further interpretations up to the consumer?
>
My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries,
thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a
switchdev_notifier_fdb_info struct the common case does not need to be
entered.
Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct
and if it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they
will get dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find
such an error.
>> item->locked = false;
>> item->info.dev = (!p || item->is_local) ? br->dev : p->dev;
>> item->info.ctx = ctx;
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:14:00PM +0100, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote: > > > + item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags); > > > > Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any > > further interpretations up to the consumer? > > My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries, > thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a switchdev_notifier_fdb_info > struct the common case does not need to be entered. > Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct and if > it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they will get > dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find such an error. I'll leave it up to bridge maintainers if this is preferable to patching all callers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE such that they set is_static=true.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:33:58AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:14:00PM +0100, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote: > > > > + item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags); > > > > > > Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any > > > further interpretations up to the consumer? > > > > My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries, > > thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a switchdev_notifier_fdb_info > > struct the common case does not need to be entered. > > Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct and if > > it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they will get > > dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find such an error. > > I'll leave it up to bridge maintainers if this is preferable to patching > all callers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE such that they set is_static=true. Actually, why would you assume that all users of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE want to add static FDB entries? You can't avoid inspecting the code and making sure that the is_dyn/is_static flag is set correctly either way.
On 2023-01-19 14:40, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:33:58AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:14:00PM +0100, netdev@kapio-technology.com >> wrote: >> > > > + item->is_dyn = !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags); >> > > >> > > Why reverse logic? Why not just name this "is_static" and leave any >> > > further interpretations up to the consumer? >> > >> > My reasoning for this is that the common case is to have static entries, >> > thus is_dyn=false, so whenever someone uses a switchdev_notifier_fdb_info >> > struct the common case does not need to be entered. >> > Otherwise it might also break something when someone uses this struct and if >> > it was 'is_static' and they forget to code is_static=true they will get >> > dynamic entries without wanting it and it can be hard to find such an error. >> >> I'll leave it up to bridge maintainers if this is preferable to >> patching >> all callers of SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE such that they set >> is_static=true. > > Actually, why would you assume that all users of > SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE > want to add static FDB entries? You can't avoid inspecting the code and > making sure that the is_dyn/is_static flag is set correctly either way. Well, up until this patch set there is no option, besides entries from SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE events will get the external learned flag set, so they will not be aged by the bridge, and so dynamic entries that way don't make much sense I think. Is that not right?
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.