[Bridge] [PATCH] net: bridge: Allow bridge to joing multicast groups

Ido Schimmel idosch at idosch.org
Mon Jul 29 17:51:36 UTC 2019


On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
> The 07/29/2019 17:21, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > On 29/07/2019 16:52, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
> > > The 07/29/2019 15:50, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >> On 29/07/2019 15:22, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >>> Hi Allan,
> > >>> On 29/07/2019 15:14, Allan W. Nielsen wrote:
> > >>>> First of all, as mentioned further down in this thread, I realized that our
> > >>>> implementation of the multicast floodmasks does not align with the existing SW
> > >>>> implementation. We will change this, such that all multicast packets goes to the
> > >>>> SW bridge.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This changes things a bit, not that much.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I actually think you summarized the issue we have (after changing to multicast
> > >>>> flood-masks) right here:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The 07/26/2019 12:26, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Actually you mentioned non-IP traffic, so the querier stuff is not a problem. This
> > >>>>>>> traffic will always be flooded by the bridge (and also a copy will be locally sent up).
> > >>>>>>> Thus only the flooding may need to be controlled.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This seems to be exactly what we need.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Assuming we have a SW bridge (br0) with 4 slave interfaces (eth0-3). We use this
> > >>>> on a network where we want to limit the flooding of frames with dmac
> > >>>> 01:21:6C:00:00:01 (which is non IP traffic) to eth0 and eth1.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> One way of doing this could potentially be to support the following command:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> bridge fdb add    01:21:6C:00:00:01 port eth0
> > >>>> bridge fdb append 01:21:6C:00:00:01 port eth1
> > >> And the fdbs become linked lists?
> > > Yes, it will most likely become a linked list
> > > 
> > >> So we'll increase the complexity for something that is already supported by
> > >> ACLs (e.g. tc) and also bridge per-port multicast flood flag ?
> > > I do not think it can be supported with the facilities we have today in tc.
> > > 
> > > We can do half of it (copy more fraems to the CPU) with tc, but we can not limit
> > > the floodmask of a frame with tc (say we want it to flood to 2 out of 4 slave
> > > ports).
> > Why not ? You attach an egress filter for the ports and allow that dmac on only
> > 2 of the ports.
> Because we want a solution which we eventually can offload in HW. And the HW
> facilities we have is doing ingress processing (we have no egress ACLs in this
> design), and if we try to offload an egress rule, with an ingress HW facility,
> then we will run into other issues.

Can you please clarify what you're trying to achieve? I just read the
thread again and my impression is that you're trying to locally receive
packets with a certain link layer multicast address. Nik suggested
SIOCADDMULTI and I suggested a tc filter to get the packet to the CPU.

If you now want to limit the ports to which this packet is flooded, then
you can use tc filters in *software*:

# tc qdisc add dev eth2 clsact
# tc filter add dev eth2 egress pref 1 flower skip_hw \
	dst_mac 01:21:6C:00:00:01 action drop

If you want to forward the packet in hardware and locally receive it,
you can chain several mirred action and then a trap action.

Both options avoid HW egress ACLs which your design does not support.


More information about the Bridge mailing list