Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [RFC PATCH net] e1000e: keep vlan interfaces functional after rxvlan off

[Jarod Wilson]

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 04:55:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 02:02:04PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:31:53AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > I've got a bug report about an e1000e interface, where a vlan interface is
> > > >> > set up on top of it:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > $ ip link add link ens1f0 name ens1f0.99 type vlan id 99
> > > >> > $ ip link set ens1f0 up
> > > >> > $ ip link set ens1f0.99 up
> > > >> > $ ip addr add 192.168.99.92 dev ens1f0.99
> > > >> >
> > > >> > At this point, I can ping another host on vlan 99, ip 192.168.99.91.
> > > >> > However, if I do the following:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > $ ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Then no traffic passes on ens1f0.99. It comes back if I toggle rxvlan on
> > > >> > again. I'm not sure if this is actually intended behavior, or if there's a
> > > >> > lack of software vlan stripping fallback, or what, but things continue to
> > > >> > work if I simply don't call e1000e_vlan_strip_disable() if there are
> > > >> > active vlans (plagiarizing a function from the e1000 driver here) on the
> > > >> > interface.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Also slipped a related-ish fix to the kerneldoc text for
> > > >> > e1000e_vlan_strip_disable here...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > CC: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > CC: intel-wired-lan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > CC: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> > ---
> > > >> >  drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > >> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > > >> > index 75e6089..73f7452 100644
> > > >> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > > >> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> > > >> > @@ -154,6 +154,16 @@ void __ew32(struct e1000_hw *hw, unsigned long reg, u32 val)
> > > >> >         writel(val, hw->hw_addr + reg);
> > > >> >  }
> > > >> >
> > > >> > +static bool e1000e_vlan_used(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> > > >> > +{
> > > >> > +       u16 vid;
> > > >> > +
> > > >> > +       for_each_set_bit(vid, adapter->active_vlans, VLAN_N_VID)
> > > >> > +               return true;
> > > >> > +
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm pretty sure this is always going to return true if 8021q is loaded
> > > >> because VLAN 0 is always added to the device even if no other VLANs
> > > >> are in use.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, hadn't considered that, I just plucked it straight from e1000.
> > > >
> > > >> > +       return false;
> > > >> > +}
> > > >> > +
> > > >> >  /**
> > > >> >   * e1000_regdump - register printout routine
> > > >> >   * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> > > >> > @@ -2789,7 +2799,7 @@ static void e1000e_vlan_filter_enable(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> > > >> >  }
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  /**
> > > >> > - * e1000e_vlan_strip_enable - helper to disable HW VLAN stripping
> > > >> > + * e1000e_vlan_strip_disable - helper to disable HW VLAN stripping
> > > >> >   * @adapter: board private structure to initialize
> > > >> >   **/
> > > >> >  static void e1000e_vlan_strip_disable(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> > > >> > @@ -3443,7 +3453,8 @@ static void e1000e_set_rx_mode(struct net_device *netdev)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >         ew32(RCTL, rctl);
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -       if (netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX)
> > > >> > +       if (netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX ||
> > > >> > +           e1000e_vlan_used(adapter))
> > > >> >                 e1000e_vlan_strip_enable(adapter);
> > > >> >         else
> > > >> >                 e1000e_vlan_strip_disable(adapter);
> > > >>
> > > >> So if the VLAN tag stripping is disabled what happens that is causing
> > > >> the VLAN test to fail?  It sounds like this might be working around a
> > > >> kernel bug where a VLAN created on a device that supports hardware tag
> > > >> stripping only supports hardware tag stripping.  Maybe a better fix
> > > >> would be to add a fall back so if the VLAN tag is in the frame instead
> > > >> of stripped it still makes it to the correct spot.
> > > >
> > > > That's the main reason I labeled it as an RFC -- I wasn't sure exactly how
> > > > things were intended to work when the hardware stripping was disabled. It
> > > > seems quite plausible to me that this patch simply papers over the real
> > > > bug: lack of a functional software fallback. I'm not particularly up on
> > > > the vlan code just yet though, so I'm not yet sure where to poke next.
> > > > Suggestions welcomed. :)
> > > 
> > > Well the software fallback should be the call to skb_vlan_untag in
> > > __netif_receive_skb_core.  If that isn't being triggered then we
> > > should probably be fixing the files in the core code then.
> > 
> > So I've been poking at a debug-spew-laden kernel some, and skb_vlan_untag
> > is most definitely not getting called when rxvlan off is set. I'm still
> > poking around, trying to track down where things are going askew.
> 
> Okay, so rxvlan is *supposed* to only impact the rx path, right? It's
> looking like it is actually impacting the tx path too here. I actually
> *do* see calls to skb_vlan_untag with rxvlan off, if I ping from an
> external host, so it seems only the packets from the host with rxvlan
> toggled off aren't escaping correctly for some reason.

And this leads me to believe maybe the bit in the e1000 driver that
mentions explicitly that the hardware has no support for separate RX/TX
vlan accel toggling rings true for e1000e as well, and thus both
NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX and NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_TX need to be kept in
sync. Testing this theory out shortly...

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@xxxxxxxxxx