Thread (59 messages) 59 messages, 7 authors, 2020-12-16

Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/4] net: dsa: Link aggregation support

From: Ido Schimmel <hidden>
Date: 2020-12-16 18:50:02

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:15:03PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 13:42, Ido Schimmel [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 02:12:31AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
quoted
On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:18:27PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
quoted
On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 16:26, Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 09:50:24PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
quoted
2. The issue Vladimir mentioned above. This is also a straight forward
   fix, I have patch for tag_dsa, making sure that offload_fwd_mark is
   never set for ports in standalone mode.

   I am not sure if I should solve it like that or if we should just
   clear the mark in dsa_switch_rcv if the dp does not have a
   bridge_dev. I know both Vladimir and I were leaning towards each
   tagger solving it internally. But looking at the code, I get the
   feeling that all taggers will end up copying the same block of code
   anyway. What do you think?
As for this series, my intention is to make sure that (A) works as
intended, leaving (B) for another day. Does that seem reasonable?

NOTE: In the offloaded case, (B) will of course also be supported.
Yeah, ok, one can already tell that the way I've tested this setup was
by commenting out skb->offload_fwd_mark = 1 altogether. It seems ok to
postpone this a bit.

For what it's worth, in the giant "RX filtering for DSA switches" fiasco
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20200521211036.668624-11-olteanv@gmail.com/
we seemed to reach the conclusion that it would be ok to add a new NDO
answering the question "can this interface do forwarding in hardware
towards this other interface". We can probably start with the question
being asked for L2 forwarding only.
Very interesting, though I did not completely understand the VXLAN
scenario laid out in that thread. I understand that OFM can not be 0,
because you might have successfully forwarded to some destinations. But
setting it to 1 does not smell right either. OFM=1 means "this has
already been forwarded according to your current configuration" which is
not completely true in this case. This is something in the middle, more
like skb->offload_fwd_mark = its_complicated;
Very pertinent question. Given your observation that nbp_switchdev_mark_set()
calls dev_get_port_parent_id() with recurse=true, this means that a vxlan
upper should have the same parent ID as the real interface. At least the
theory coincides with the little practice I applied to my setup where
felix does not support vxlan offload:

I printed the p->offload_fwd_mark assigned by nbp_switchdev_mark_set:
ip link add br0 type bridge
ip link set swp1 master br0
[   15.887217] mscc_felix 0000:00:00.5 swp1: offload_fwd_mark 1
ip link add vxlan10 type vxlan id 10 group 224.10.10.10 dstport 4789 ttl 10 dev swp0
ip link set vxlan10 master br0
[  102.734390] vxlan10: offload_fwd_mark 1

So a clearer explanation needs to be found for how Ido's exception
traffic due to missing neighbor in the vxlan underlay gets re-forwarded
by the software bridge to the software vxlan interface. It cannot be due
to a mismatch of bridge port offload_fwd_mark values unless there is
some different logic applied for Mellanox hardware that I am not seeing.
So after all, it must be due to skb->offload_fwd_mark being unset?

To be honest, I almost expect that the Mellanox switches are "all or
nothing" in terms of forwarding. So if the vxlan interface (which is
only one of the bridge ports) could not deliver the packet, it would
seem cleaner to me that none of the other interfaces deliver the packet
either. Then the driver picks up this exception packet on the original
ingress interface, and the software bridge + software vxlan do the job.
And this means that skb->offload_fwd_mark = it_isnt_complicated.

But this is clearly at odds with what Ido said, that "swp0 and vxlan0 do
not have the same parent ID", and which was the center of his entire
argument. It's my fault really, I should have checked. Let's hope that
Ido can explain again.
Problem is here:

ip link add vxlan10 type vxlan id 10 group 224.10.10.10 dstport 4789 ttl 10 dev swp0

We don't configure VXLAN with a bound device. In fact, we forbid it:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlxsw/spectrum_nve_vxlan.c#L46
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/mlxsw/vxlan.sh#L182

Even if we were to support a bound device, it is unlikely to be a switch
port, but some dummy interface that we would enslave to a VRF in which
we would like the underlay lookup to be performed. We use this with GRE
tunnels:
https://github.com/Mellanox/mlxsw/wiki/L3-Tunneling#general-gre-configuration

Currently, underlay lookup always happens in the default VRF.

VXLAN recently got support for this as well. See this series:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=79dfab43a976b76713c40222987c48e32510ebc1
How do you handle multiple VXLAN interfaces?  I.e. in this setup:

         br0
   .--' .' '. '----.
  /    /     \      \
swp0 swp1  vxlan0 vxlan1

Say that both VXLANs are offloaded, the nexthop of vxlan0 is in the
hardware ARP cache, but vxlan1's is not.

If a broadcast is received on swp0, hardware will forward to swp1 and
vxlan0, then trap the original frame to the CPU with offload_fwd_mark=1.

What prevents duplicates from being sent out through vxlan0 in that
case?
We don't support multiple VXLAN devices in the same VLAN, but lets look
at a simpler topology:

         br0
   .--' .' '.
  /    /     \
swp0 swp1  vxlan0

VXLAN supports something called Head End Replication (HER) [1]. You can
flood a packet to multiple remote VTEPs. In Linux, this is configured
using the all-zero MAC address in the VXLAN's FDB [2]. It is possible
that after flooding a packet to 100 VTEPs, in the 101th VTEP, the packet
hit an exception in the underlay and was trapped to the CPU for
resolution via swp0. It won't be flooded to swp1 since it's marked, but
what prevents it from being flooded to all the other VTEPs again?
Nothing. Per-VTEP flood indication is not encoded in the skb and I'm not
aware of any hardware that can provide it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast,_unknown-unicast_and_multicast_traffic#BUM_handling_in_VxLAN
[2] https://vincent.bernat.ch/en/blog/2017-vxlan-linux#unicast-with-static-flooding
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help