Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 3 Apr 2021 17:22:24 +0200
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 2/9] net: dsa: tag_ar9331: detect IGMP and
 MLD packets
Message-ID: <20210403152224.u7vbehkijg2wzxon@pengutronix.de>
References: <20210403114848.30528-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20210403114848.30528-3-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20210403130318.lqkd6id7gehg3bin@skbuf>
 <20210403132636.h7ghwk2eaekskx2b@pengutronix.de>
 <20210403134606.tm7dyy3gt2nop2sj@skbuf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210403134606.tm7dyy3gt2nop2sj@skbuf>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 04:46:06PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 03:26:36PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 04:03:18PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > Hi Oleksij,
> > > 
> > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 01:48:41PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > > > The ar9331 switch is not forwarding IGMP and MLD packets if IGMP
> > > > snooping is enabled. This patch is trying to mimic the HW heuristic to take
> > > > same decisions as this switch would do to be able to tell the linux
> > > > bridge if some packet was prabably forwarded or not.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > I am not familiar with IGMP/MLD, therefore I don't really understand
> > > what problem you are trying to solve.
> > > 
> > > Your switch has packet traps for IGMP and MLD, ok. So it doesn't forward
> > > them. Must the IGMP/MLD packets be forwarded by an IGMP/MLD snooping
> > > bridge? Which ones and under what circumstances?
> > 
> > I'll better refer to the rfc:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4541
> 
> Ok, the question might have been a little bit dumb.
> I found this PDF:
> https://www.alliedtelesis.com/sites/default/files/documents/how-alliedware/howto_config_igmp1.pdf
> and it explains that:
> - a snooper floods the Membership Query messages from the network's
>   querier towards all ports that are not blocked by STP
> - a snooper forwards all Membership Report messages from a client
>   towards the All Groups port (which is how it reaches the querier).
> 
> I'm asking this because I just want to understand what the bridge code
> does. Does the code path for IGMP_HOST_MEMBERSHIP_REPORT (for example)
> for a snooper go through should_deliver -> nbp_switchdev_allowed_egress,
> which is what you are affecting here?

yes.

the exact path should depend on this configuration option:
/sys/devices/virtual/net/test/bridge/multicast_snooping

I assume, some optimization can be done by letting DSA know the state
of multicast_snooping.

Off-topic question, this patch set stops to work after rebasing against
latest netdev. I get following warning:
ip l s lan0 master test
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argumen

Are there some API changes?

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |