Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/10] MC Flood disable and snooping

[Nikolay Aleksandrov]

On 4/2/24 20:43, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Nikolai,
>
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:28:38PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> > For the bridge patches:
> > Nacked-by: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > You cannot break the multicast flood flag to add support for a custom
> > use-case. This is unacceptable. The current bridge behaviour is correct
> > your patch 02 doesn't fix anything, you should configure the bridge
> > properly to avoid all those problems, not break protocols.
> >
> > Your special use case can easily be solved by a user-space helper or
> > eBPF and nftables. You can set the mcast flood flag and bypass the
> > bridge for these packets. I basically said the same in 2021, if this is
> > going to be in the bridge it should be hidden behind an option that is
> > default off. But in my opinion adding an option to solve such special
> > cases is undesirable, they can be easily solved with what's currently
> > available.
>
> I appreciate your time is limited, but could you please translate your
> suggestion, and detail your proposed alternative a bit, for those of us
> who are not very familiar with IP multicast snooping?

My suggestion is not related to snooping really, but to the goal of
patches 01-03. The bridge patches in this set are trying to forward
traffic that is not supposed to be forwarded with the proposed
configuration, so that can be done by a user-space helper that installs
rules to bypass the bridge specifically for those packets while
monitoring the bridge state to implement a policy and manage these rules
in order to keep snooping working.

> Bypass the bridge for which packets? General IGMP/MLD queries? Wouldn't
> that break snooping? And then do what with the packets, forward them in
> another software layer than the bridge?

The ones that are not supposed to be forwarded in the proposed config
and are needed for this use case (control traffic and link-local). 
Obviously to have proper snooping you'd need to manage these bypass
rules and use them only while needed.

> I also don't quite understand the suggestion of turning on mcast flooding:
> isn't Joseph saying that he wants it off for the unregistered multicast
> data traffic?

Ah my bad, I meant to turn off flooding and bypass the bridge for those
packets and ports while necessary, under necessary can be any policy
that the user-space helper wants to implement.

In any case, if this is going to be yet another kernel solution then it
must be a new option that is default off, and doesn't break current 
mcast flood flag behaviour.

In general my opinion is that the whole snooping control must be in
user-space and only have the dataplane in the kernel, but that is beyond
the scope of this set.