Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 1/4] net: bridge: add fdb flag to extent locked port feature

[Hans S]

Yes, that sounds much like the case. So the replace of course just
modifies the SW fdb entry, and then it just uses port_fdb_add() to
replace HW entry I assume, which then in my case triggers
SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE as the locked entry is removed.
So I should not send the SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE message when
removing the locked entry from port_fdb_add() function...

(note: having problems with smtp.gmail.com...)


On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 2:18 PM Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 02:08:41PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
> > >
> > > I think Hans is testing with mv88e6xxx which dumps entries directly from
> > > HW via ndo_fdb_dump(). See dsa_slave_port_fdb_do_dump() which sets
> > > NTF_SELF.
> > >
> > > Hans, are you seeing the entry twice? Once with 'master' and once with
> > > 'self'?
> > >
> >
> > When replacing a locked entry it looks like this:
> >
> > # bridge fdb show dev eth6 | grep 4c
> > 00:4c:4c:4c:4c:4c vlan 1 master br0 extern_learn offload locked
> >
> > # bridge fdb replace 00:4c:4c:4c:4c:4c dev eth6 vlan 1 master static ; bridge fdb show dev eth6 | grep 4c
> > 00:4c:4c:4c:4c:4c vlan 1 self static
>
> This output means that the FDB entry was deleted from the bridge driver
> FDB.
>
> >
> > The problem is then that the function
> > br_fdb_find_rcu(br,eth_hdr(skb)->h_source, vid);
> > , where the h_source and vid is the entry above, does not find the entry.
> > My hypothesis was then that this is because of the 'self' flag that I
> > see.
>
> br_fdb_find_rcu() does a lookup in the bridge driver FDB, but per the
> output above, the entry isn't there for some reason. It's only in HW.
>
> Can it be that you driver is deleting these entries from the bridge
> driver FDB via SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE for some reason?
>
> >
> > I am thinking that the function dsa_slave_port_fdb_do_dump() is only for
> > debug, and thus does not really set any flags in the bridge modules FDB,
> > but then I don't understand why the above find function does not find
> > the entry?