[Bridge] MRP netlink interface

Nikolay Aleksandrov nikolay at cumulusnetworks.com
Mon May 25 10:26:45 UTC 2020


On 25/05/2020 13:03, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:28:27AM +0000, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> [...]
>> My first approach was to extend the 'struct br_mrp_instance' with a field that
>> contains the priority of the node. But this breaks the backwards compatibility,
>> and then every time when I need to change something, I will break the backwards
>> compatibility. Is this a way to go forward?
> 
> No, I would rather say it's an example showing why passing data
> structures as binary data via netlink is a bad idea. I definitely
> wouldn't advice this approach for any new interface. One of the
> strengths of netlink is the ability to use structured and extensible
> messages.
> 
>> Another approach is to restructure MRP netlink interface. What I was thinking to
>> keep the current attributes (IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE,
>> IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_PORT_STATE,...) but they will be nested attributes and each of
>> this attribute to contain the fields of the structures they represents.
>> For example:
>> [IFLA_AF_SPEC] = {
>>     [IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS]
>>     [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP]
>>         [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE_RING_ID]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE_P_IFINDEX]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE_S_IFINDEX]
>>         [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_RING_ROLE]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_RING_ROLE_RING_ID]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_RING_ROLE_ROLE]
>>         ...
>> }
>> And then I can parse each field separately and then fill up the structure
>> (br_mrp_instance, br_mrp_port_role, ...) which will be used forward.
>> Then when this needs to be extended with the priority it would have the
>> following format:
>> [IFLA_AF_SPEC] = {
>>     [IFLA_BRIDGE_FLAGS]
>>     [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP]
>>         [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE_RING_ID]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE_P_IFINDEX]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE_S_IFINDEX]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_INSTANCE_PRIO]
>>         [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_RING_ROLE]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_RING_ROLE_RING_ID]
>>             [IFLA_BRIDGE_MRP_RING_ROLE_ROLE]
>>         ...
>> }
>> And also the br_mrp_instance will have a field called prio.
>> So now, if the userspace is not updated to have support for setting the prio
>> then the kernel will use a default value. Then if the userspace contains a field
>> that the kernel doesn't know about, then it would just ignore it.
>> So in this way every time when the netlink interface will be extended it would
>> be backwards compatible.
> 
> Silently ignoring unrecognized attributes in userspace requests is what
> most kernel netlink based interfaces have been doing traditionally but
> it's not really a good idea. Essentially it ties your hands so that you
> can only add new attributes which can be silently ignored without doing
> any harm, otherwise you risk that kernel will do something different
> than userspace asked and userspace does not even have a way to find out
> if the feature is supported or not. (IIRC there are even some places
> where ignoring an attribute changes the nature of the request but it is
> still ignored by older kernels.)
> 
> That's why there have been an effort, mostly by Johannes Berg, to
> introduce and promote strict checking for new netlink interfaces and new
> attributes in existing netlink attributes. If you don't have strict
> checking for unknown attributes enabled yet, there isn't much that can
> be done for already released kernels but I would suggest to enable it as
> soon as possible.
> 
> Michal
> 

+1, we don't have strict checking for the bridge main af spec attributes, but
you could add that for new nested interfaces that need to be parsed like the
above









More information about the Bridge mailing list