[Bridge] [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] net: bridge: add per-port multicast flood flag

Linus Lüssing linus.luessing at c0d3.blue
Wed Aug 31 17:28:12 UTC 2016


On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 08:02:22AM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 31/08/16 03:37, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:23:08PM +0200, Nikolay Aleksandrov via Bridge wrote:
> >> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_if.c b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> >> index 1da3221845f1..ed0dd3340084 100644
> >> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c
> >> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c
> >> @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static struct net_bridge_port *new_nbp(struct net_bridge *br,
> >>  	p->path_cost = port_cost(dev);
> >>  	p->priority = 0x8000 >> BR_PORT_BITS;
> >>  	p->port_no = index;
> >> -	p->flags = BR_LEARNING | BR_FLOOD;
> >> +	p->flags = BR_LEARNING | BR_FLOOD | BR_MCAST_FLOOD;
> > 
> > I'm discontent with this new flag becoming the default.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate a little more on your use-case, when/why do
> > you want/need this flag?
> > 
> 
> The use case is the current default behaviour if we don't make this flag on by default
> then we'll change user-visible default behaviour. Right now we flood unregistered mcast
> traffic by default (if there's no querier and router port, which continues to function
> as before). Also we have the port flags equal to BR_AUTO_MASK by default.

Ok, you're right, the way you implemented it doesn't
change the default behaviour (ignoring the BR_AUTO_MASK change you
removed in v3).

I guess the "similar to the unknown unicast flood flag" confused
me a little and I was afraid that the "flood if there is no
listener / MDB entry" behaviour, which was removed some years ago,
would be reintroduced. (but yeah, looking at the code more
closely, it doesn't do that)

Thanks for the clarification!

Regards, Linus


More information about the Bridge mailing list