Re: [RFC net-next v4 7/9] bridge: mrp: Connect MRP api with the switchev API

From: Nikolay Aleksandrov
Date: Thu Apr 02 2020 - 10:29:23 EST

Next message: Heiko Stübner: "Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rx0 mipi-phy for rk3399"
Previous message: Jason Wang: "Re: [PATCH] vhost: drop vring dependency on iotlb"
In reply to: Horatiu Vultur: "Re: [RFC net-next v4 7/9] bridge: mrp: Connect MRP api with the switchev API"
Next in thread: Horatiu Vultur: "Re: [RFC net-next v4 7/9] bridge: mrp: Connect MRP api with the switchev API"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 02/04/2020 17:18, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 04/01/2020 19:32, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 01/04/2020 19:06, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>> The 03/30/2020 19:11, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> On 27/03/2020 11:21, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>>>> Implement the MRP api.
>>>>>
>>>>> In case the HW can't generate MRP Test frames then the SW will try to generate
>>>>> the frames. In case that also the SW will fail in generating the frames then a
>>>>> error is return to the userspace. The userspace is responsible to generate all
>>>>> the other MRP frames regardless if the test frames are generated by HW or SW.
>>>>>
>>>>> The forwarding/termination of MRP frames is happening in the kernel and is done
>>>>> by the MRP instance. The userspace application doesn't do the forwarding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> net/bridge/br_mrp.c | 514 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 514 insertions(+)
>>>>> create mode 100644 net/bridge/br_mrp.c
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Hi Nik,
>>>
>>>> In general the RCU usage needs more work.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the detailed review, this is my first time when I use the RCU,
>>> so I might need to spend more time on time.
>>>
>>>> Also I might've missed it, but where do you
>>>> handle bridge port delete which is used in mrp ?
>>>
>>> When a port is deleted, then the userspace application will be notified
>>> and then the userspace will remove the MRP instance. Because there is no
>>> point to have a MRP instance with only 1 port. And the function that
>>> delets the MRP instance is br_mrp_del.
>>>
>>
>> How would you execute br_mrp_del() if the port is already deleted from the bridge ?
>> Nothing prevents the port to disappear and then you lose all bridge callbacks.
>
> The br_mrp_del() is called on the bridge interface and not on the port.
> The flow as I see it: the port is deleted from the bridge, the userspace
> will be notified by this, the userspace will determine the bridge on
> which was the port and then the userspace will make netlink call on the
> bridge interface. In this way it would not loose the callback when the
> port is deleted from the bridge.
> The question is when the bridge is deleted, I can see that first it
> deletes the ports and then it would delete the bridge. In this case I am
> loosing the callbacks.
> Should the function br_dev_delete be exteded for this?
>

That is correct, but I don't think the above would work. There are pointers to
ports in MRP and if they get deleted those ptrs are no longer valid. Even in
br_mrp_del() there's code like:
/* Reset the ports */
p = rcu_dereference_protected(mrp->p_port, lockdep_is_held(&mrp->lock));

but p could've been deleted before so now br_mrp_del() will deref an invalid ptr.

By the way I just noticed another bug in br_mrp_del():
+ synchronize_rcu();
+
+ list_del_rcu(&mrp->list);

this is the wrong way around, you should delete it from the list so it can't be found
by any new readers and then do synchronize_rcu() before freeing it. Also why do you
use the devm_ calls ? You're allocating/freeing the memory so you don't need the managed
alloc, just cleanup properly on port/bridge del.

>>
>>>> Also do you actually need the mrp->lock ?
>>>
>>> I think I should be fine not to use mrp->lock because already the rtnl
>>> lock is taken.
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_mrp.c b/net/bridge/br_mrp.c
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..f1de792d7a6e
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_mrp.c
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,514 @@
>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include "br_private_mrp.h"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static const u8 mrp_test_dmac[ETH_ALEN] = { 0x1, 0x15, 0x4e, 0x0, 0x0, 0x1 };
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct net_bridge_port *br_mrp_get_port(struct net_bridge *br,
>>>>> + u32 ifindex)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct net_bridge_port *res = NULL;
>>>>> + struct net_bridge_port *port;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> This is called under RTNL, you don't need the br->lock.
>>>
>>> Will be fix in the next patch series.
>>>>
>>>>> + list_for_each_entry(port, &br->port_list, list) {
>>>>> + if (port->dev->ifindex == ifindex) {
>>>>> + res = port;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return res;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct br_mrp *br_mrp_find_id(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ring_id)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *res = NULL;
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> This is generally a bad pattern because it can hide legitimate bugs and make
>>>> it harder to debug.
>>>
>>> Can you give me a little more details why is a bad pattern?
>>> I have tried to read about rcu from here[1][2]. But I couldn't see
>>> anything about this.
>>>
>>
>> In general you should know the context the function is used in, you cannot use the
>> pointer obtained from this search after the rcu_read_unlock(). If this function is
>> ever used in context which doesn't have rcu read lock or the writer lock then you'll
>> mask the bug here. If you know it is always called from RCU context then just drop
>> these, if not then add the proper lockdep annotations so they can be checked.
>
> Thanks for the details. I will fix it in the next patch series.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrp, &br->mrp_list, list) {
>>>>> + if (mrp->ring_id == ring_id) {
>>>>> + res = mrp;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return res;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct br_mrp *br_mrp_find_port(struct net_bridge *br,
>>>>> + struct net_bridge_port *p)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *res = NULL;
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrp, &br->mrp_list, list) {
>>>>> + if (rcu_dereference(mrp->p_port) == p ||
>>>>> + rcu_dereference(mrp->s_port) == p) {
>>>>
>>>> rcu_access_pointer() is ok for comparisons
>>>
>>> Will be fix in the next patch series.
>>>>
>>>>> + res = mrp;
>>>>> + break;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return res;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static int br_mrp_next_seq(struct br_mrp *mrp)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + mrp->seq_id++;
>>>>> + return mrp->seq_id;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct sk_buff *br_mrp_skb_alloc(struct net_bridge_port *p,
>>>>> + const u8 *src, const u8 *dst)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct ethhdr *eth_hdr;
>>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb;
>>>>> + u16 *version;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + skb = dev_alloc_skb(MRP_MAX_FRAME_LENGTH);
>>>>> + if (!skb)
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + skb->dev = p->dev;
>>>>> + skb->protocol = htons(ETH_P_MRP);
>>>>> + skb->priority = MRP_FRAME_PRIO;
>>>>> + skb_reserve(skb, sizeof(*eth_hdr));
>>>>> +
>>>>> + eth_hdr = skb_push(skb, sizeof(*eth_hdr));
>>>>> + ether_addr_copy(eth_hdr->h_dest, dst);
>>>>> + ether_addr_copy(eth_hdr->h_source, src);
>>>>> + eth_hdr->h_proto = htons(ETH_P_MRP);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + version = skb_put(skb, sizeof(*version));
>>>>> + *version = cpu_to_be16(MRP_VERSION);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return skb;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void br_mrp_skb_tlv(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>>> + enum br_mrp_tlv_header_type type,
>>>>> + u8 length)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp_tlv_hdr *hdr;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + hdr = skb_put(skb, sizeof(*hdr));
>>>>> + hdr->type = type;
>>>>> + hdr->length = length;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void br_mrp_skb_common(struct sk_buff *skb, struct br_mrp *mrp)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp_common_hdr *hdr;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_skb_tlv(skb, BR_MRP_TLV_HEADER_COMMON, sizeof(*hdr));
>>>>> +
>>>>> + hdr = skb_put(skb, sizeof(*hdr));
>>>>> + hdr->seq_id = cpu_to_be16(br_mrp_next_seq(mrp));
>>>>> + memset(hdr->domain, 0xff, MRP_DOMAIN_UUID_LENGTH);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct sk_buff *br_mrp_alloc_test_skb(struct br_mrp *mrp,
>>>>> + struct net_device *dev,
>>>>> + enum br_mrp_port_role_type port_role)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct net_bridge_port *p = br_port_get_rtnl(dev);
>>>>> + struct br_mrp_ring_test_hdr *hdr = NULL;
>>>>> + struct net_bridge *br = p->br;
>>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!p)
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br = p->br;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + skb = br_mrp_skb_alloc(p, p->dev->dev_addr, mrp_test_dmac);
>>>>> + if (!skb)
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_skb_tlv(skb, BR_MRP_TLV_HEADER_RING_TEST, sizeof(*hdr));
>>>>> + hdr = skb_put(skb, sizeof(*hdr));
>>>>> +
>>>>> + hdr->prio = cpu_to_be16(MRP_DEFAULT_PRIO);
>>>>> + ether_addr_copy(hdr->sa, p->br->dev->dev_addr);
>>>>> + hdr->port_role = cpu_to_be16(port_role);
>>>>> + hdr->state = cpu_to_be16(mrp->ring_state);
>>>>> + hdr->transitions = cpu_to_be16(mrp->ring_transitions);
>>>>> + hdr->timestamp = cpu_to_be32(jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies));
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_skb_common(skb, mrp);
>>>>> + br_mrp_skb_tlv(skb, BR_MRP_TLV_HEADER_END, 0x0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return skb;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void br_mrp_test_work_expired(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct delayed_work *del_work = to_delayed_work(work);
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp = container_of(del_work, struct br_mrp, test_work);
>>>>> + bool notify_open = false;
>>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Since this runs asynchronously what happens if the port is deleted ?
>>>
>>> Later I have checks to see if the port is no NULL. Is not good enough?
>>> I have these rcu_access_pointer checks and before that I disable the
>>> interrupts and get the rcu lock.
>>>
>>
>> That is not safe because you dereference the pointer again after the check
>> and it may become NULL between those. You could do ptr = rcu_dereference();
>> if (!ptr) and if non-null then continue accessing that memory through ptr.
>
> I see, I will try to use rcu_dereference as you suggested.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> + if (time_before_eq(mrp->test_end, jiffies))
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (mrp->test_count_miss < mrp->test_max_miss) {
>>>>> + mrp->test_count_miss++;
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + /* Notify that the ring is open only if the ring state is
>>>>> + * closed, otherwise it would continue to notify at every
>>>>> + * interval.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (mrp->ring_state == BR_MRP_RING_STATE_CLOSED)
>>>>> + notify_open = true;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + local_bh_disable();
>>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!rcu_access_pointer(mrp->p_port) ||
>>>>> + !rcu_access_pointer(mrp->s_port))
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Is it possible here to get call to delete the bridge port? If yes
>>>>> + * I need to protect it
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + dev_hold(rcu_dereference(mrp->p_port)->dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> This looks all wrong, p_port can become NULL here and you'll deref it.
>>>
>>> By disabling the interrupts and taking the rcu read lock, will I not be
>>> sure that no one can access the p_port?
>>
>> No. You should read more about how RCU operates.
>
> Yes, I should definetly do that.
>
>>
>>> If is not true, how the p_port can become NULL?
>>>
>>
>> Readers and writer run concurrently.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> + skb = br_mrp_alloc_test_skb(mrp, rcu_dereference(mrp->p_port)->dev,
>>>>> + BR_MRP_PORT_ROLE_PRIMARY);
>>>>> + if (!skb)
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + skb_reset_network_header(skb);
>>>>> + dev_queue_xmit(skb);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (notify_open && !mrp->ring_role_offloaded)
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_open(rcu_dereference(mrp->p_port)->dev, true);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dev_put(rcu_dereference(mrp->p_port)->dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dev_hold(rcu_dereference(mrp->s_port)->dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> same here
>>>>
>>>>> + skb = br_mrp_alloc_test_skb(mrp, rcu_dereference(mrp->s_port)->dev,
>>>>> + BR_MRP_PORT_ROLE_SECONDARY);
>>>>> + if (!skb)
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + skb_reset_network_header(skb);
>>>>> + dev_queue_xmit(skb);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (notify_open && !mrp->ring_role_offloaded)
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_open(rcu_dereference(mrp->s_port)->dev, true);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + dev_put(rcu_dereference(mrp->s_port)->dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +out:
>>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>> + local_bh_enable();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + queue_delayed_work(system_wq, &mrp->test_work,
>>>>> + usecs_to_jiffies(mrp->test_interval));
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* Adds a new MRP instance.
>>>>> + * note: called under rtnl_lock
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +int br_mrp_add(struct net_bridge *br, struct br_mrp_instance *instance)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct net_bridge_port *p;
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* If the ring exists, it is not possible to create another one with the
>>>>> + * same ring_id
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + mrp = br_mrp_find_id(br, instance->ring_id);
>>>>> + if (mrp)
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!br_mrp_get_port(br, instance->p_ifindex) ||
>>>>> + !br_mrp_get_port(br, instance->s_ifindex))
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mrp = devm_kzalloc(&br->dev->dev, sizeof(struct br_mrp), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>> + if (!mrp)
>>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* I think is not needed because this can be replaced with rtnl lock*/
>>>>> + spin_lock_init(&mrp->lock);
>>>>> + spin_lock(&mrp->lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mrp->br = br;
>>>>
>>>> Is this field (mrp->br) used anywhere ?
>>>
>>> Not anymore. I can remove it in the next patch series.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + mrp->ring_id = instance->ring_id;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + p = br_mrp_get_port(br, instance->p_ifindex);
>>>>> + p->state = BR_STATE_FORWARDING;
>>>>> + p->flags |= BR_MRP_AWARE;
>>>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(mrp->p_port, p);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + p = br_mrp_get_port(br, instance->s_ifindex);
>>>>> + p->state = BR_STATE_FORWARDING;
>>>>> + p->flags |= BR_MRP_AWARE;
>>>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(mrp->s_port, p);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_switchdev_add(mrp);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&mrp->lock);
>>>>> + synchronize_rcu();
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need the synchronize here?
>>>
>>> Actually this shouldn't be after the list_add_tail_rcu? Because I am
>>> thinking that some can read the list at the same time I am change it.
>>
>> That doesn't help, rcu primitives are already safe to run concurrently with readers.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + list_add_tail_rcu(&mrp->list, &br->mrp_list);
>>>>> + INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&mrp->test_work, br_mrp_test_work_expired);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* Deletes existing MRP instance.
>>>>> + * note: called under rtnl_lock
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +int br_mrp_del(struct net_bridge *br, struct br_mrp_instance *instance)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp = br_mrp_find_id(br, instance->ring_id);
>>>>> + struct net_bridge_port *p;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!mrp)
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Stop sending MRP_Test frames */
>>>>> + cancel_delayed_work(&mrp->test_work);
>>>>
>>>> cancel_delayed_work_sync() if you'd like to make sure it's stopped and finished (if it was running
>>>> during this)
>>>
>>> Will be fixed in the next patch series.
>>>>
>>>>> + br_mrp_switchdev_send_ring_test(mrp, 0, 0, 0);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_lock(&mrp->lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_switchdev_del(mrp);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Reset the ports */
>>>>> + p = rcu_dereference_protected(mrp->p_port, lockdep_is_held(&mrp->lock));
>>>>> + if (p) {
>>>>> + spin_lock(&br->lock);
>>>>> + p->state = BR_STATE_FORWARDING;
>>>>> + p->flags &= ~BR_MRP_AWARE;
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_switchdev_set_state(p, BR_STATE_FORWARDING);
>>>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(mrp->p_port, NULL);
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&br->lock);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + p = rcu_dereference_protected(mrp->s_port, lockdep_is_held(&mrp->lock));
>>>>> + if (p) {
>>>>> + spin_lock(&br->lock);
>>>>> + p->state = BR_STATE_FORWARDING;
>>>>> + p->flags &= ~BR_MRP_AWARE;
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_switchdev_set_state(p, BR_STATE_FORWARDING);
>>>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(mrp->s_port, NULL);
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&br->lock);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Destroy the ring */
>>>>> + mrp->br = NULL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&mrp->lock);
>>>>> + synchronize_rcu();
>>>>> +
>>>>> + list_del_rcu(&mrp->list);
>>>>> + devm_kfree(&br->dev->dev, mrp);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int br_mrp_set_port_state(struct net_bridge_port *p,
>>>>> + enum br_mrp_port_state_type state)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + spin_lock(&p->br->lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (state == BR_MRP_PORT_STATE_FORWARDING)
>>>>> + p->state = BR_STATE_FORWARDING;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + p->state = BR_STATE_BLOCKING;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_switchdev_set_state(p, state);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&p->br->lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int br_mrp_set_port_role(struct net_bridge_port *p,
>>>>> + u32 ring_id, enum br_mrp_port_role_type role)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp = br_mrp_find_id(p->br, ring_id);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!mrp)
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_lock(&mrp->lock);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (role == BR_MRP_PORT_ROLE_PRIMARY)
>>>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(mrp->p_port, p);
>>>>> + if (role == BR_MRP_PORT_ROLE_SECONDARY)
>>>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(mrp->s_port, p);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_switchdev_set_role(p, role);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + spin_unlock(&mrp->lock);
>>>>> + synchronize_rcu();
>>>>
>>>> Why do you need to synchronize here?
>>>
>>> Actually this is not needed.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int br_mrp_set_ring_state(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ring_id,
>>>>> + enum br_mrp_ring_state_type state)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp = br_mrp_find_id(br, ring_id);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!mrp)
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (mrp->ring_state == BR_MRP_RING_STATE_CLOSED &&
>>>>> + state != BR_MRP_RING_STATE_CLOSED)
>>>>> + mrp->ring_transitions++;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mrp->ring_state = state;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_switchdev_set_ring_state(mrp, state);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int br_mrp_set_ring_role(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ring_id,
>>>>> + enum br_mrp_ring_role_type role)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp = br_mrp_find_id(br, ring_id);
>>>>> + int err;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!mrp)
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mrp->ring_role = role;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* If there is an error just bailed out */
>>>>> + err = br_mrp_switchdev_set_ring_role(mrp, role);
>>>>> + if (err && err != -EOPNOTSUPP)
>>>>> + return err;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Now detect if the HW actually applied the role or not. If the HW
>>>>> + * applied the role it means that the SW will not to do those operations
>>>>> + * anymore. For example if the role ir MRM then the HW will notify the
>>>>> + * SW when ring is open, but if the is not pushed to the HW the SW will
>>>>> + * need to detect when the ring is open
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + mrp->ring_role_offloaded = err == -EOPNOTSUPP ? 0 : 1;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int br_mrp_start_test(struct net_bridge *br, u32 ring_id, u32 interval,
>>>>> + u8 max_miss, u32 period)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp = br_mrp_find_id(br, ring_id);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!mrp)
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Try to push is to the HW and if it fails then continue to generate in
>>>>> + * SW and if that also fails then return error
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (!br_mrp_switchdev_send_ring_test(mrp, interval, max_miss, period))
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mrp->test_interval = interval;
>>>>> + mrp->test_end = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(period);
>>>>> + mrp->test_max_miss = max_miss;
>>>>> + mrp->test_count_miss = 0;
>>>>> + queue_delayed_work(system_wq, &mrp->test_work,
>>>>> + usecs_to_jiffies(interval));
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* Process only MRP Test frame. All the other MRP frames are processed by
>>>>> + * userspace application
>>>>> + * note: already called with rcu_read_lock
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static void br_mrp_mrm_process(struct br_mrp *mrp, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct br_mrp_tlv_hdr *hdr;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + hdr = (struct br_mrp_tlv_hdr *)(skb->data + sizeof(uint16_t));
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (hdr->type != BR_MRP_TLV_HEADER_RING_TEST)
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + mrp->test_count_miss = 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_open(rcu_dereference(mrp->p_port)->dev, false);
>>>>> + br_mrp_port_open(rcu_dereference(mrp->s_port)->dev, false);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* This will just forward the frame to the other mrp ring port(MRC role) or will
>>>>> + * not do anything.
>>>>> + * note: already called with rcu_read_lock
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static int br_mrp_rcv(struct net_bridge_port *p,
>>>>> + struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct net_device *s_dev, *p_dev, *d_dev;
>>>>> + struct net_bridge *br;
>>>>> + struct sk_buff *nskb;
>>>>> + struct br_mrp *mrp;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* If port is disable don't accept any frames */
>>>>> + if (p->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + br = p->br;
>>>>> + mrp = br_mrp_find_port(br, p);
>>>>> + if (unlikely(!mrp))
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* If the role is MRM then don't forward the frames */
>>>>> + if (mrp->ring_role == BR_MRP_RING_ROLE_MRM) {
>>>>> + br_mrp_mrm_process(mrp, skb);
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + nskb = skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
>>>>> + if (!nskb)
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + p_dev = rcu_dereference(mrp->p_port)->dev;
>>>>> + s_dev = rcu_dereference(mrp->s_port)->dev;
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Not safe, could deref null.
>>>
>>> Will be fixed in the next patch series.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + if (p_dev == dev)
>>>>> + d_dev = s_dev;
>>>>> + else
>>>>> + d_dev = p_dev;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + nskb->dev = d_dev;
>>>>> + skb_push(nskb, ETH_HLEN);
>>>>> + dev_queue_xmit(nskb);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +int br_mrp_process(struct net_bridge_port *p, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + /* If there is no MRP instance do normal forwarding */
>>>>> + if (unlikely(!(p->flags & BR_MRP_AWARE)))
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't this one be likely() ?
>>>
>>> Yes, this should be likely.
>>>>
>>>>> + goto out;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (unlikely(skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_MRP)))
>>>>> + return br_mrp_rcv(p, skb, p->dev);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +out:
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/262464/
>>> [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/RCU/listRCU.html
>>>
>>
>

Next message: Heiko Stübner: "Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: rockchip: add rx0 mipi-phy for rk3399"
Previous message: Jason Wang: "Re: [PATCH] vhost: drop vring dependency on iotlb"
In reply to: Horatiu Vultur: "Re: [RFC net-next v4 7/9] bridge: mrp: Connect MRP api with the switchev API"
Next in thread: Horatiu Vultur: "Re: [RFC net-next v4 7/9] bridge: mrp: Connect MRP api with the switchev API"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]