Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 25 Mar 2023 00:10:30 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     =?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgTMOpZ2Vy?= <clement.leger@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        Herve Codina <herve.codina@bootlin.com>,
        =?utf-8?Q?Miqu=C3=A8l?= Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Milan Stevanovic <milan.stevanovic@se.com>,
        Jimmy Lalande <jimmy.lalande@se.com>,
        Pascal Eberhard <pascal.eberhard@se.com>,
        Arun Ramadoss <Arun.Ramadoss@microchip.com>,
        linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexis =?utf-8?Q?Lothor=C3=A9?= <alexis.lothore@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND net-next v4 2/3] net: dsa: rzn1-a5psw: add support
 for .port_bridge_flags
Message-ID: <20230324221030.eps7xsbapwfzjxez@skbuf>
References: <20230314163651.242259-1-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20230314163651.242259-3-clement.leger@bootlin.com>
 <20230314230821.kjiyseiqhat4apqb@skbuf>
 <20230316125329.75b290d4@fixe.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20230316125329.75b290d4@fixe.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 12:53:29PM +0100, Cl?ment L?ger wrote:
> Le Wed, 15 Mar 2023 01:08:21 +0200,
> Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com> a ?crit :
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:36:50PM +0100, Cl?ment L?ger wrote:
> > > +static int a5psw_port_pre_bridge_flags(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > +				       struct switchdev_brport_flags flags,
> > > +				       struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (flags.mask & ~(BR_LEARNING | BR_FLOOD | BR_MCAST_FLOOD |
> > > +			   BR_BCAST_FLOOD))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +a5psw_port_bridge_flags(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> > > +			struct switchdev_brport_flags flags,
> > > +			struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct a5psw *a5psw = ds->priv;
> > > +	u32 val;
> > > +
> > > +	if (flags.mask & BR_LEARNING) {
> > > +		val = flags.val & BR_LEARNING ? 0 : A5PSW_INPUT_LEARN_DIS(port);
> > > +		a5psw_reg_rmw(a5psw, A5PSW_INPUT_LEARN,
> > > +			      A5PSW_INPUT_LEARN_DIS(port), val);
> > > +	}  
> > 
> > 2 issues.
> > 
> > 1: does this not get overwritten by a5psw_port_stp_state_set()?
> 
> Hum indeed. How is this kind of thing supposed to be handled ? Should I
> remove the handling of BR_LEARNING to forbid modifying it ? Ot should I
> allow it only if STP isn't enabled (which I'm not sure how to do it) ?

It's handled correctly by only enabling learning in port_stp_state_set()
if dp->learning allows it. See sja1105_bridge_stp_state_set():

	case BR_STATE_LEARNING:
		mac[port].dyn_learn = dp->learning;
		break;
	case BR_STATE_FORWARDING:
		mac[port].dyn_learn = dp->learning;

ocelot_bridge_stp_state_set():

	if ((state == BR_STATE_LEARNING || state == BR_STATE_FORWARDING) &&
	    ocelot_port->learn_ena)
		learn_ena = ANA_PORT_PORT_CFG_LEARN_ENA;

ksz_port_stp_state_set():

	case BR_STATE_LEARNING:
		if (!p->learning)
			data |= PORT_LEARN_DISABLE;
		break;
	case BR_STATE_FORWARDING:
		if (!p->learning)
			data |= PORT_LEARN_DISABLE;

> > enables flooding on the port after calling a5psw_port_bridge_leave().
> > So the port which has left a bridge is standalone, but it still forwards
> > packets to the other bridged ports!
> 
> Actually not this way because the port is configured in a specific mode
> which only forward packet to the CPU ports. Indeed, we set a specific
> rule using the PATTERN_CTRL register with the MGMTFWD bit set:
> When set, the frame is forwarded to the management port only
> (suppressing destination address lookup).

Ah, cool, this answers one of my issues in the other thread.

> However, the port will received packets *from* the other ports (which is
> wrong... I can handle that by not setting the flooding attributes if
> the port is not in bridge. Doing so would definitely fix the various
> problems that could happen.

hmm.. I guess that could work?