[Bridge] [PATCH v2 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: notify switchdev of disappearance of old FDB entry upon migration

[Nikolay Aleksandrov]

On 13/12/2020 15:22, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 13/12/2020 04:40, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> Currently the bridge emits atomic switchdev notifications for
>> dynamically learnt FDB entries. Monitoring these notifications works
>> wonders for switchdev drivers that want to keep their hardware FDB in
>> sync with the bridge's FDB.
>>
>> For example station A wants to talk to station B in the diagram below,
>> and we are concerned with the behavior of the bridge on the DUT device:
>>
>>                    DUT
>>  +-------------------------------------+
>>  |                 br0                 |
>>  | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ |
>>  | |      | |      | |      | |      | |
>>  | | swp0 | | swp1 | | swp2 | | eth0 | |
>>  +-------------------------------------+
>>       |        |                  |
>>   Station A    |                  |
>>                |                  |
>>          +--+------+--+    +--+------+--+
>>          |  |      |  |    |  |      |  |
>>          |  | swp0 |  |    |  | swp0 |  |
>>  Another |  +------+  |    |  +------+  | Another
>>   switch |     br0    |    |     br0    | switch
>>          |  +------+  |    |  +------+  |
>>          |  |      |  |    |  |      |  |
>>          |  | swp1 |  |    |  | swp1 |  |
>>          +--+------+--+    +--+------+--+
>>                                   |
>>                               Station B
>>
>> Interfaces swp0, swp1, swp2 are handled by a switchdev driver that has
>> the following property: frames injected from its control interface bypass
>> the internal address analyzer logic, and therefore, this hardware does
>> not learn from the source address of packets transmitted by the network
>> stack through it. So, since bridging between eth0 (where Station B is
>> attached) and swp0 (where Station A is attached) is done in software,
>> the switchdev hardware will never learn the source address of Station B.
>> So the traffic towards that destination will be treated as unknown, i.e.
>> flooded.
>>
>> This is where the bridge notifications come in handy. When br0 on the
>> DUT sees frames with Station B's MAC address on eth0, the switchdev
>> driver gets these notifications and can install a rule to send frames
>> towards Station B's address that are incoming from swp0, swp1, swp2,
>> only towards the control interface. This is all switchdev driver private
>> business, which the notification makes possible.
>>
>> All is fine until someone unplugs Station B's cable and moves it to the
>> other switch:
>>
>>                    DUT
>>  +-------------------------------------+
>>  |                 br0                 |
>>  | +------+ +------+ +------+ +------+ |
>>  | |      | |      | |      | |      | |
>>  | | swp0 | | swp1 | | swp2 | | eth0 | |
>>  +-------------------------------------+
>>       |        |                  |
>>   Station A    |                  |
>>                |                  |
>>          +--+------+--+    +--+------+--+
>>          |  |      |  |    |  |      |  |
>>          |  | swp0 |  |    |  | swp0 |  |
>>  Another |  +------+  |    |  +------+  | Another
>>   switch |     br0    |    |     br0    | switch
>>          |  +------+  |    |  +------+  |
>>          |  |      |  |    |  |      |  |
>>          |  | swp1 |  |    |  | swp1 |  |
>>          +--+------+--+    +--+------+--+
>>                |
>>            Station B
>>
>> Luckily for the use cases we care about, Station B is noisy enough that
>> the DUT hears it (on swp1 this time). swp1 receives the frames and
>> delivers them to the bridge, who enters the unlikely path in br_fdb_update
>> of updating an existing entry. It moves the entry in the software bridge
>> to swp1 and emits an addition notification towards that.
>>
>> As far as the switchdev driver is concerned, all that it needs to ensure
>> is that traffic between Station A and Station B is not forever broken.
>> If it does nothing, then the stale rule to send frames for Station B
>> towards the control interface remains in place. But Station B is no
>> longer reachable via the control interface, but via a port that can
>> offload the bridge port learning attribute. It's just that the port is
>> prevented from learning this address, since the rule overrides FDB
>> updates. So the rule needs to go. The question is via what mechanism.
>>
>> It sure would be possible for this switchdev driver to keep track of all
>> addresses which are sent to the control interface, and then also listen
>> for bridge notifier events on its own ports, searching for the ones that
>> have a MAC address which was previously sent to the control interface.
>> But this is cumbersome and inefficient. Instead, with one small change,
>> the bridge could notify of the address deletion from the old port, in a
>> symmetrical manner with how it did for the insertion. Then the switchdev
>> driver would not be required to monitor learn/forget events for its own
>> ports. It could just delete the rule towards the control interface upon
>> bridge entry migration. This would make hardware address learning be
>> possible again. Then it would take a few more packets until the hardware
>> and software FDB would be in sync again.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> Patch is new.
>>
>>  net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
> 
> Hi Vladimir,
> Thank you for the good explanation, it really helps a lot to understand the issue.
> Even though it's deceptively simple, that call adds another lock/unlock for everyone
> when moving or learning (due to notifier lock), but I do like how simple the solution
> becomes with this change, so I'm not strictly against it. I think I'll add a "refcnt"-like
> check in the switchdev fn which would process the chain only when there are registered users
> to avoid any locks when moving fdbs on pure software bridges (like it was before swdev).
> 
> I get that the alternative is to track these within DSA, I'm tempted to say that's not such
> a bad alternative as this change would make moving fdbs slower in general. Have you thought
> about another way to find out, e.g. if more fdb information is passed to the notifications ?
> 
> Thanks,
>  Nik
> 

Nevermind the whole comment. :) I was looking at the wrong code and got confused.

All is well (thanks to Ido).

Acked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay at nvidia.com>