Re: MRP netlink interface

[Horatiu Vultur]

The 05/25/2020 13:26, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> 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

Thanks for the detail explanation. Currently this is in net-next so I
would try to change it.
Can you point me to some code that is using this strict checking for
netlink attributes? Just to have a better understanding of it.

> >
> 
> +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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
/Horatiu