Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: Verify after ATU Load ops

[Joseph Huang]

On 3/5/2025 10:14 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 06:53:51PM -0500, Joseph Huang wrote:
> > ATU Load operations could fail silently if there's not enough space
> > on the device to hold the new entry.
> >
> > Do a Read-After-Write verification after each fdb/mdb add operation
> > to make sure that the operation was really successful, and return
> > -ENOSPC otherwise.
>
> Please could you add a description of what the user sees when the ATU
> is full. What makes this a bug which needs fixing? I would of thought
> at least for unicast addresses, the switch has no entry for the
> destination, so sends the packet to the CPU. The CPU will then
> software bridge it out the correct port. Reporting ENOSPC will not
> change that.

Hi Andrew,

What the user will see when the ATU table is full depends on the unknown 
flood setting. If a user has unknown multicast flood disabled, what the 
user will see is that multicast packets are dropped when the ATU table 
is full. In other words, IGMP snooping is broken when the ATU Load 
operation fails silently.

Even if the packet is kicked up to the CPU and the CPU intends to 
forward the packet out via the software bridge, the forwarding attempt 
is going to be blocked due to the 'offload_fwd_mark' flag in 
nbp_switchdev_allowed_egress(). Even if that somehow worked, we will not 
be fully utilizing the hardware's switching capability and will be 
relying on the CPU to do the forwarding, which will likely result in 
lower throughput.

Reporting -ENOSPC will not change the fact that the ATU table is full, 
however it does give switchdev a chance to notify the user and then the 
user can take some further action accordingly. If nothing else, at least 
'bridge monitor' will now report that the entries are not offloaded.

Some other DSA drivers are reporting -ENOSPC as well when the table is 
full (at least b53 and ocelot).

> > @@ -2845,7 +2866,8 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> >   
> >   	mv88e6xxx_reg_lock(chip);
> >   	err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_load_purge(chip, port, addr, vid,
> > -					   MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_STATIC);
> > +					   MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_STATIC,
> > +					   true);
> >   	mv88e6xxx_reg_unlock(chip);
> >   
> >   	return err;
>
> > @@ -6613,7 +6635,8 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_mdb_add(struct dsa_switch *ds, int port,
> >   
> >   	mv88e6xxx_reg_lock(chip);
> >   	err = mv88e6xxx_port_db_load_purge(chip, port, mdb->addr, mdb->vid,
> > -					   MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_MC_STATIC);
> > +					   MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_MC_STATIC,
> > +					   true);
> >   	mv88e6xxx_reg_unlock(chip);
>
> This change seems bigger than what it needs to be. Rather than modify
> mv88e6xxx_port_db_load_purge(), why not perform the lookup just in
> these two functions via a helper?
>
>      Andrew

I will make that change. Thanks for the review.

Thanks,
Joseph
> ---
> pw-bot: cr