Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB implementation
From: Hans Schultz <hidden>
Date: 2022-03-23 10:14:03
Also in:
bridge, lkml
On tis, mar 22, 2022 at 13:08, Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:01:13PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:quoted
On fre, mar 18, 2022 at 15:19, Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:10:26PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:quoted
In the offloaded case there is no difference between static and dynamic flags, which I see as a general issue. (The resulting ATU entry is static in either case.)It _is_ a problem. We had the same problem with the is_local bit. Independently of this series, you can add the dynamic bit to struct switchdev_notifier_fdb_info and make drivers reject it.quoted
These FDB entries are removed when link goes down (soft or hard). The zero DPV entries that the new code introduces age out after 5 minutes, while the locked flagged FDB entries are removed by link down (thus the FDB and the ATU are not in sync in this case).Ok, so don't let them disappear from hardware, refresh them from the driver, since user space and the bridge driver expect that they are still there.I have now tested with two extra unmanaged switches (each connected to a seperate port on our managed switch, and when migrating from one port to another, there is member violations, but as the initial entry ages out, a new miss violation occurs and the new port adds the locked entry. In this case I only see one locked entry, either on the initial port or later on the port the host migrated to (via switch). If I refresh the ATU entries indefinitly, then this migration will for sure not work, and with the member violation suppressed, it will be silent about it.Manual says that migrations should trigger miss violations if configured adequately, is this not the case?quoted
So I don't think it is a good idea to refresh the ATU entries indefinitely. Another issue I see, is that there is a deadlock or similar issue when receiving violations and running 'bridge fdb show' (it seemed that member violations also caused this, but not sure yet...), as the unit freezes, not to return...Have you enabled lockdep, debug atomic sleep, detect hung tasks, things like that?
I have now determined that it is the rtnl_lock() that causes the "deadlock". The doit() in rtnetlink.c is under rtnl_lock() and is what takes care of getting the fdb entries when running 'bridge fdb show'. In principle there should be no problem with this, but I don't know if some interrupt queue is getting jammed as they are blocked from rtnetlink.c?