The 07/30/2019 11:58, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:

On 30/07/2019 11:30, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:

quoted

The 07/30/2019 10:06, Ido Schimmel wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 08:27:22AM +0200, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:

quoted

The 07/29/2019 20:51, Ido Schimmel wrote:

quoted

Can you please clarify what you're trying to achieve? I just read the
thread again and my impression is that you're trying to locally receive
packets with a certain link layer multicast address.

Yes. The thread is also a bit confusing because we half way through realized
that we misunderstood how the multicast packets should be handled (sorry about
that). To begin with we had a driver where multicast packets was only copied to
the CPU if someone needed it. Andrew and Nikolay made us aware that this is not
how other drivers are doing it, so we changed the driver to include the CPU in
the default multicast flood-mask.

OK, so what prevents you from removing all other ports from the
flood-mask and letting the CPU handle the flooding? Then you can install
software tc filters to limit the flooding.

I do not have the bandwidth to forward the multicast traffic in the CPU.

It will also cause enormous latency on the forwarding of L2 multicast packets.

quoted

quoted

This changes the objective a bit. To begin with we needed to get more packets to
the CPU (which could have been done using tc ingress rules and a trap action).

Now after we changed the driver, we realized that we need something to limit the
flooding of certain L2 multicast packets. This is the new problem we are trying
to solve!

Example: Say we have a bridge with 4 slave interfaces, then we want to install a
forwarding rule saying that packets to a given L2-multicast MAC address, should
only be flooded to 2 of the 4 ports.

(instead of adding rules to get certain packets to the CPU, we are now adding
other rules to prevent other packets from going to the CPU and other ports where
they are not needed/wanted).

This is exactly the same thing as IGMP snooping does dynamically, but only for
IP multicast.

The "bridge mdb" allow users to manually/static add/del a port to a multicast
group, but still it operates on IP multicast address (not L2 multicast
addresses).

quoted

Nik suggested SIOCADDMULTI.

It is not clear to me how this should be used to limit the flooding, maybe we
can make some hacks, but as far as I understand the intend of this is maintain
the list of addresses an interface should receive. I'm not sure this should
influence how for forwarding decisions are being made.

quoted

and I suggested a tc filter to get the packet to the CPU.

The TC solution is a good solution to the original problem where wanted to copy
more frames to the CPU. But we were convinced that this is not the right
approach, and that the CPU by default should receive all multicast packets, and
we should instead try to find a way to limit the flooding of certain frames as
an optimization.

This can still work. In Linux, ingress tc filters are executed before the
bridge's Rx handler. The same happens in every sane HW. Ingress ACL is
performed before L2 forwarding. Assuming you have eth0-eth3 bridged and
you want to prevent packets with DMAC 01:21:6C:00:00:01 from egressing
eth2:

# tc filter add dev eth0 ingress pref 1 flower skip_sw \
	dst_mac 01:21:6C:00:00:01 action trap
# tc filter add dev eth2 egress pref 1 flower skip_hw \
	dst_mac 01:21:6C:00:00:01 action drop

The first filter is only present in HW ('skip_sw') and should result in
your HW passing you the sole copy of the packet.

Agree.

quoted

The second filter is only present in SW ('skip_hw', not using HW egress
ACL that you don't have) and drops the packet after it was flooded by
the SW bridge.

Agree.

quoted

As I mentioned earlier, you can install the filter once in your HW and
share it between different ports using a shared block. This means you
only consume one TCAM entry.

Note that this allows you to keep flooding all other multicast packets
in HW.

Yes, but the frames we want to limit the flood-mask on are the exact frames
which occurs at a very high rate, and where latency is important.

I really do not consider it as an option to forward this in SW, when it is
something that can easily be offloaded in HW.

quoted

quoted

quoted

If you now want to limit the ports to which this packet is flooded, then
you can use tc filters in *software*:

# tc qdisc add dev eth2 clsact
# tc filter add dev eth2 egress pref 1 flower skip_hw \
	dst_mac 01:21:6C:00:00:01 action drop

Yes. This can work in the SW bridge.

quoted

If you want to forward the packet in hardware and locally receive it,
you can chain several mirred action and then a trap action.

I'm not I fully understand how this should be done, but it does sound like it
becomes quite complicated. Also, as far as I understand it will mean that we
will be using TCAM/ACL resources to do something that could have been done with
a simple MAC entry.

quoted

Both options avoid HW egress ACLs which your design does not support.

True, but what is wrong with expanding the functionality of the normal
forwarding/MAC operations to allow multiple destinations?

It is not an uncommon feature (I just browsed the manual of some common L2
switches and they all has this feature).

It seems to fit nicely into the existing user-interface:

bridge fdb add    01:21:6C:00:00:01 port eth0
bridge fdb append 01:21:6C:00:00:01 port eth1

Wouldn't it be better to instead extend the MDB entries so that they are
either keyed by IP or MAC? I believe FDB should remain as unicast-only.

You might be right, it was not clear to me which of the two would fit the
purpose best.

From a user-space iproute2 perspective I prefer using the "bridge fdb" command
as it already supports the needed syntax, and I do not think it will be too
pretty if we squeeze this into the "bridge mdb" command syntax.

MDB is a much better fit as Ido already suggested. FDB should remain unicast
and mixing them is not a good idea, we already have a good ucast/mcast separation
and we'd like to keep it that way.

Okay. We will explore that option.

quoted

But that does not mean that it need to go into the FDB database in the
implementation.

Last evening when I looked at it again, I was considering keeping the
net_bridge_fdb_entry structure as is, and add a new hashtable with the
following:

struct net_bridge_fdbmc_entry {
	struct rhash_head		rhnode;
	struct net_bridge_fdbmc_ports   *dst;

	struct net_bridge_fdb_key	key;
	struct hlist_node		fdb_node;
	unsigned char			offloaded:1;

	struct rcu_head			rcu;
};

What would the notification for this look like ?

Not sure. But we will change the direction and use the MDB structures instead.

quoted

If we go with this approach then we can look at the MAC address and see if it is
a unicast which will cause a lookup in the fdb, l3-multicast (33:33:* or
01:00:5e:*) which will cause a lookup in the mdb, or finally a fdbmc which will
need to do a lookup in this new hashtable.

That sounds wrong, you will change the current default behaviour of flooding these
packets. This will have to be well hidden behind a new option and enabled only on user
request.

It will only affect users who install a static L2-multicast entry. If no entry
is found, it will default to flooding, which will be the same as before.

quoted

Alternative it would be like this:

struct net_bridge_fdb_entry {
	struct rhash_head		rhnode;
	union net_bridge_port_or_list	*dst;

	struct net_bridge_fdb_key	key;
	struct hlist_node		fdb_node;
	unsigned char			is_local:1,
					is_static:1,
					is_sticky:1,
					added_by_user:1,
					added_by_external_learn:1,
					offloaded:1;
					multi_dst:1;

	/* write-heavy members should not affect lookups */
	unsigned long			updated ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
	unsigned long			used;

	struct rcu_head			rcu;
};

Both solutions should require fairly few changes, and should not cause any
measurable performance hit.

You'll have to convert these bits to use the proper atomic bitops if you go with
the second solution. That has to be done even today, but the second case would
make it a must.

Good to know.

Just for my understanding, is this because this is the "current" guide lines on
how things should be done, or is this because the multi_dst as a special need.

The multi_dst flag will never be changed in the life-cycle of the structure, and
the structure is protected by rcu. If this is causeing a raise, then I do not
see it.

quoted

Making it fit into the net_bridge_mdb_entry seems to be harder.

But it is the correct abstraction from bridge POV, so please stop trying to change
the FDB code and try to keep to the multicast code.

We are planning on letting the net_bridge_port_or_list union use the
net_bridge_port_group structure, which will mean that we can re-use the
br_multicast_flood function (if we change the signatire to accept the ports
instead of the entry).

quoted

quoted

As a bonus, existing drivers could benefit from it, as MDB entries are already
notified by MAC.

Not sure I follow. When FDB entries are added, it also generates notification
events.

Could you please show fdb event with multiple ports ?

We will get to that. Maybe this is an argument for converting to mdb. We have
not looked into the details of this yet.

quoted

quoted

quoted

It seems that it can be added to the existing implementation with out adding
significant complexity.

It will be easy to offload in HW.

I do not believe that it will be a performance issue, if this is a concern then
we may have to do a bit of benchmarking, or we can make it a configuration
option.

Long story short, we (Horatiu and I) learned a lot from the discussion here, and
I think we should try do a new patch with the learning we got. Then it is easier
to see what it actually means to the exiting code, complexity, exiting drivers,
performance, default behavioral, backwards compatibly, and other valid concerns.

If the patch is no good, and cannot be fixed, then we will go back and look
further into alternative solutions.

Overall, I tend to agree with Nik. I think your use case is too specific
to justify the amount of changes you want to make in the bridge driver.
We also provided other alternatives. That being said, you're more than
welcome to send the patches and we can continue the discussion then.

Okay, good to know. I'm not sure I agree that the alternative solutions really
solves the issue this is trying to solve, nor do I agree that this is specific
to our needs.

But lets take a look at a new patch, and see what is the amount of changes we
are talking about. Without having the patch it is really hard to know for sure.

Please keep in mind that this case is the exception, not the norm, thus it should
not under any circumstance affect the standard deployments.

Understood - no surprises.

-- 
/Allan