2023-01-30 17:37:09

by Hans Schultz

Subject: [PATCH net-next 4/5] net: bridge: ensure FDB offloaded flag is handled as needed

Since user added entries in the bridge FDB will get the BR_FDB_OFFLOADED
flag set, we do not want the bridge to age those entries and we want the
entries to be deleted in the bridge upon an SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE
event.

Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <[email protected]>
---
net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
index e69a872bfc1d..b0c23a72bc76 100644
--- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
+++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
@@ -537,6 +537,7 @@ void br_fdb_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
unsigned long this_timer = f->updated + delay;

if (test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &f->flags) ||
+ test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &f->flags) ||
test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &f->flags)) {
if (test_bit(BR_FDB_NOTIFY, &f->flags)) {
if (time_after(this_timer, now))
@@ -1465,7 +1466,9 @@ int br_fdb_external_learn_del(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_bridge_port *p,
spin_lock_bh(&br->hash_lock);

fdb = br_fdb_find(br, addr, vid);
- if (fdb && test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &fdb->flags))
+ if (fdb &&
+ (test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &fdb->flags) ||
+ test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &fdb->flags)))
fdb_delete(br, fdb, swdev_notify);
else
err = -ENOENT;
--
2.34.1

2023-02-01 18:25:04

by Ido Schimmel

Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] net: bridge: ensure FDB offloaded flag is handled as needed

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 06:34:28PM +0100, Hans J. Schultz wrote:
> Since user added entries in the bridge FDB will get the BR_FDB_OFFLOADED
> flag set, we do not want the bridge to age those entries and we want the
> entries to be deleted in the bridge upon an SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE
> event.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hans J. Schultz <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> index e69a872bfc1d..b0c23a72bc76 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> @@ -537,6 +537,7 @@ void br_fdb_cleanup(struct work_struct *work)
> unsigned long this_timer = f->updated + delay;
>
> if (test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &f->flags) ||
> + test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &f->flags) ||
> test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &f->flags)) {
> if (test_bit(BR_FDB_NOTIFY, &f->flags)) {
> if (time_after(this_timer, now))

Looks correct

> @@ -1465,7 +1466,9 @@ int br_fdb_external_learn_del(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_bridge_port *p,
> spin_lock_bh(&br->hash_lock);
>
> fdb = br_fdb_find(br, addr, vid);
> - if (fdb && test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &fdb->flags))
> + if (fdb &&
> + (test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &fdb->flags) ||
> + test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &fdb->flags)))

This also looks correct, but the function name is not really accurate
anymore. I guess you can keep it as-is unless someone has a better name

> fdb_delete(br, fdb, swdev_notify);
> else
> err = -ENOENT;
> --
> 2.34.1
>

2023-02-02 07:33:11

by Hans Schultz

Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/5] net: bridge: ensure FDB offloaded flag is handled as needed

On 2023-02-01 19:24, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>
> This also looks correct, but the function name is not really accurate
> anymore. I guess you can keep it as-is unless someone has a better name
>
>> fdb_delete(br, fdb, swdev_notify);
>> else
>> err = -ENOENT;
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>

I have been wondering if it makes sense to have both external_learn and
offloaded flags as they now work pretty much the same seen from the
bridge. But as I don't know other switches, I guess there is some good
reason to have the two?