[Bridge] [PATCH v9 net-next 00/12] Add basic VLAN support to bridges

[Vlad Yasevich]

On 02/07/2013 05:57 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:48:00 -0500
> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/04/2013 11:58 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>> On 02/04/2013 11:24 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> One thing I am not clear about is whether is supposed to be just
>>>> a simple filter of VLAN traffic, or a full VLAN aware bridge.
>>>
>>> I started with the concept of basic VLAN filtering, but it has been
>>> morphing into more of a VLAN away bridge.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The change to make FDB entries per-VLAN seems to be the biggest tipping
>>>> point into a full VLAN bridge. I am concerned that might break existing
>>>> API's and Spanning Tree (internal and external).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I debated for a while about whether per-VLAN FDB entries were needed.
>>> The typing point was that without it, you may end up with flopping FDB
>>> and possible packet drops or vlan leaks, if say 2 different VMs used the
>>> same MAC but different VLANs.  Without it, there is an exploitable gap.
>>>
>>> I've also tried to separate FDB code changes as much as possible.  If
>>> you really thing this is a big risk and a barrier to entry, then we can
>>> drop them.  I am just concerned about the hole I described above, but I
>>> guess it is not much different then what's there now.
>>>
>>
>> So I played with STP for quite a bit and found the FDB changes have
>> absolutely no effect on operation of STP.
>> Since all the vlan filtering code is mostly in forwarding path, STP
>> works just fine.
>> Looking at STP code (the one in the kernel), I don't see any
>> dependencies on FDB.  The only userspace code I can find is from here
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shemminger/rstp.git.  That
>> only seems to ask for RTM_GETLINK, and there you will not get any vlan
>> information if you don't set the filter flags.
>>
>> So, I don't see any API impact as far as STP is concerned.
>
> Good, does bridge command (in newer iproute2) still work?
>

Yes.  I have patches to it enable the vlan functionality, but I haven't 
posted them since I wanted the kernel pieces including the API to get 
accepted.

-vlad