Re: [RFC PATCH v0 1/2] net: bridge: propagate FDB table into hardware

On 2/14/2012 11:05 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:57:04 -0800
John Fastabend [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2/14/2012 5:18 AM, jamal wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 07:13 -0800, John Fastabend wrote:

quoted

The use case here is multiple VFs but the same solution should work with
multiple PFs as well. FDB controls should be independent of how the ports
are exposed VFs, PFs, VMDQ/queue pairs, macvlan, etc.

Makes sense.

quoted

With events and ADD/DEL/GET FDB controls we can solve both cases. This also
solves Roopa's case with macvlan where she wants to add additional addresses
to macvlan ports.

Not familiar with that issue - I'll prowl the list.

Roopa was likely on the right track here,

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/123064/

But I think the proper syntax is to use the existing PF_BRIDGE:RTM_XXX
netlink messages. And if possible drive this without extending ndo_ops.

An ideal user space interaction IMHO would look like,

[root@jf-dev1-dcblab iproute2]# ./br/br fdb add 52:e5:62:7b:57:88 dev veth10
[root@jf-dev1-dcblab iproute2]# ./br/br fdb
port    mac addr                flags
veth2   36:a6:35:9b:96:c4       local
veth4   aa:54:b0:7b:42:ef       local
veth0   2a:e8:5c:95:6c:1b       local
veth6   6e:26:d5:43:a3:36       local
veth0   f2:c1:39:76:6a:fb
veth8   4e:35:16:af:87:13       local
veth10  52:e5:62:7b:57:88       static
veth10  aa:a9:35:21:15:c4       local
[root@jf-dev1-dcblab iproute2]# ./br/br fdb add dev eth3 to 52:e5:62:7b:57:88
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument

I am going to put bridge (nameclash with br) tool into iproute2 (soon).

I've been using it on my dev box for awhile now and it works well for
me.