Re: [PATCH] bridge: extend BR_ISOLATE to full split-horizon
flat view
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-09 16:23:38
On 09/12/2021 18:08, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
On 09/12/2021 17:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote:quoted
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 13:14:32 +0100 David Lamparter wrote:quoted
Split-horizon essentially just means being able to create multiple groups of isolated ports that are isolated within the group, but not with respect to each other. The intent is very different, while isolation is a policy feature, split-horizon is intended to provide functional "multiple member ports are treated as one for loop avoidance." But it boils down to the same thing in the end. Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <redacted> Cc: Nikolay Aleksandrov <redacted> Cc: Alexandra Winter <wintera@linux.ibm.com>Does not apply to net-next, you'll need to repost even if the code is good. Please put [PATCH net-next] in the subject.Hi, For some reason this patch didn't make it to my inbox.. Anyway I was able to see it now online, a few comments (sorry can't do them inline due to missing mbox patch): - please drop the sysfs part, we're not extending sysfs anymore - split the bridge change from the driver - drop the /* BR_ISOLATED - previously BIT(16) */ comment - [IFLA_BRPORT_HORIZON_GROUP] = NLA_POLICY_MIN(NLA_S32, 0), why not just { .type = NLA_U32 } ?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
- just forbid having both set (tb[IFLA_BRPORT_ISOLATED] && tb[IFLA_BRPORT_HORIZON_GROUP]) user-space should use just one of the two, if isolated is set then it overwrites any older IFLA_BRPORT_HORIZON_GROUP settings, that should simplify things considerably
Actually they'll have to be exported together always... that's unfortunate. I get why you need the extra netlink logic, I think we'll have to keep it.