[Bridge] [PATCH net] bridge: Fix problems around fdb entries pointing to the bridge device

Toshiaki Makita toshiaki.makita1 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 7 15:07:38 UTC 2016


On 16/08/06 (土) 7:26, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:27:25 -0700
> Roopa Prabhu <roopa at cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/16, 1:15 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>> On 2016/08/04 16:24, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/16, 7:11 PM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>>> Adding fdb entries pointing to the bridge device uses fdb_insert(),
>>>>> which lacks various checks and does not respect added_by_user flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a result, some inconsistent behavior can happen:
>>>>> * Adding temporary entries succeeds but results in permanent entries.
>>>> IIRC this is not specific to fdb entries on the bridge device. all temp
>>>> fdb entries via iproute2 result in permanent entries. thats why 'dynamic'
>>>> was added.
>>> Sorry for confusing you, I meant "temp" (i.e., "static") of bridge fdb
>>> command.
>>> "temp", "dynamic" and "use" should not result in "permanent".
>>>
>>>>> * Same goes for "dynamic" and "use".
>>>> This patch seems to not allow dynamic and use entries
>>>> on the bridge device. I don't see a strong use-case to
>>>> allow them, but any reason you want to add the restriction now ?
>>> Because dynamic fdb entries pointing the bridge device cannot be
>>> created. So it is prohibited. I cannot find other appropriate behavior
>>> about this.
>>> Or are you suggesting local entries with aging supported or something
>>> like that?
>> no, i am ok with prohibiting it, just was wondering if this is necessary.
>>
>>>
>>>>> * Changing mac address of the bridge device causes deletion of
>>>>>   user-added entries.
>>>> unless I am missing something, this does not seem to be related to the
>>>> external fdb entry on the bridge device.
>>> Yes this is related to manually-added fdb entries on the bridge device.
>>> When manual addition of fdb pointing the bridge device was introduced,
>>> we should have set added_by_user on adding the entry and modify
>>> br_fdb_change_mac_address() to respect the flag, but both were not done.
>>>
>>>>> * Replacing existing entries looks successful from userspace but actually
>>>>>   not, regardless of NLM_F_EXCL flag.
>>>> curious about this one. I will try it, but if you have an example that
>>>> will help.
>>> Before:
>>> # bridge fdb add 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev enp3s0 master
>>> # bridge fdb add 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev br0; echo $?
>>> 0
>>> # bridge fdb show
>>> ...
>>> 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev enp3s0 master br0 permanent
>>>
>>> # bridge fdb replace 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev br0; echo $?
>>> 0
>>> # bridge fdb show
>>> ...
>>> 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev enp3s0 master br0 permanent
>>>
>>> After:
>>> # bridge fdb add 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev enp3s0 master
>>> # bridge fdb add 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev br0; echo $?
>>> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
>>> 255
>>>
>>> # bridge fdb replace 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev br0; echo $?
>>> 0
>>> # bridge fdb show
>>> ...
>>> 12:34:56:78:90:ab dev br0 master br0 permanent
>>>
>> ok, thanks for the example.
>>
>> Acked-by: Roopa Prabhu <roopa at cumulusnetworks.com>
>
> It should be possible to manually add fdb entries with any combination
> of valid flags. That is it should be possible to add temporary as well as permanent
> entries. There are people that use this facility to do long and short ageing temporary
> entries.

I see. But allowing dynamic entries means that bridge effectively 
supports local entries with aging supported, and bridge has not have 
such a feature so far: Bridge currently accepts addition of dynamic 
entries, but any addition of fdb entries pointing to the bridge device 
results in permanent entries. Bridge is just pretending support of 
dynamic local entries for now.
What I'm fixing here is just a user API problem, so I'm not thinking we 
should allow dynamic entries here. I guess we can remove the restriction 
in -next in the future.

Thanks,
Toshiaki Makita


More information about the Bridge mailing list