Re: [PATCH net-next v9 5/8] hsr: Use the port and header information in hsr_forward_skb()

On 2026-10-16 11:24:16 [+0200], Daniel Machon wrote:

quoted

The upper layer can submit a port on which the skb should be sent and
whether or not a HSR header should be added. Use this information while
forwarding the packet:
- If the port set, deliver it only on the requested port.
- If a header is already present then skip parts of the stack:
  - The packet originates from the master port and we don't want to
    assign a sequence number to it, it needs to preserve the original
    one.
  - The existing h_source must be used (and not replaced).
  - The node should already exist in the node_db if "other" packets are
    exchanged. If the node information is not yet existing then
    creating it makes no sense because it is used for deduplication of
    incoming packets and this is not used in the PTP case. If no other
    packets are exchanged then the node_db will age and then removed.

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
---
 net/hsr/hsr_forward.c  | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 net/hsr/hsr_framereg.h |  2 ++
 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c b/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
index 2b8ae9723bd7f..534798da48d53 100644
--- a/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
+++ b/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c

@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ static void hsr_deliver_master(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
 static int hsr_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct hsr_port *port,
 		    struct hsr_frame_info *frame)
 {
-	if (frame->port_rcv->type == HSR_PT_MASTER) {
+	if (frame->port_rcv->type == HSR_PT_MASTER && !frame->has_foreign_header) {
 		hsr_addr_subst_dest(frame->node_src, skb, port);
 
 		/* Address substitution (IEC62439-3 pp 26, 50): replace mac

@@ -547,11 +547,12 @@ bool hsr_drop_frame(struct hsr_frame_info *frame, struct hsr_port *port)
 static void hsr_forward_do(struct hsr_frame_info *frame)
 {
 	struct hsr_port *port;
-	struct sk_buff *skb;

Is this needed, or just cleanup?

Sort of cleanup. It is still used in the loop where it is used. The NULL
init is not needed so It could stay as-is where it is.

quoted

 	bool sent = false;
 
 	hsr_for_each_port(frame->port_rcv->hsr, port) {
 		struct hsr_priv *hsr = port->hsr;
+		struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
+
 		/* Don't send frame back the way it came */
 		if (port == frame->port_rcv)
 			continue;

@@ -570,6 +571,17 @@ static void hsr_forward_do(struct hsr_frame_info *frame)
 		if ((port->dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_HSR_DUP) && sent)
 			continue;
 
+		/* PTP TX packets have an outgoing port specified */
+		if (frame->req_tx_port != HSR_PT_NONE && frame->req_tx_port != port->type)
+			continue;

This checks that if the frame is directed and that the frame is only send to the
directed port. Maybe the comments could be more clear about that.

Oki.

…

quoted

diff --git a/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.h b/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.h
index 127a3fb64d5f0..e5e6363c0466f 100644
--- a/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.h
+++ b/net/hsr/hsr_framereg.h

@@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ struct hsr_frame_info {
 	bool is_from_san;
 	bool dst_in_node_db;
 	bool dst_in_proxy_node_db;
+	bool has_foreign_header;
+	enum hsr_port_type req_tx_port;

The same flag is hsr_hdr in the uAPI, has_header in hsr_dev_xmit(),
has_hsr_header in hsr_forward_skb() and has_foreign_header here. The
port is tx_port in some places and req_tx_port in others. Could the naming be
aligned?

I could align it with has_hsr_header probably.

quoted

 };
 
 void hsr_del_self_node(struct hsr_priv *hsr);

/Daniel

Sebastian