From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15F7C433E2 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 07:36:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5421C207C3 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 07:36:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727001AbgIGHgn (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:36:43 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:51351 "EHLO out1-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726896AbgIGHgm (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:36:42 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5FF5C0117; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Sep 2020 03:36:41 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=BX3Yd1 6YTvIjzxzIgDzPgSrUa7+hMF3VetQZvcsgTF4=; b=FzNGBuMOgyAdZLMN+FexmO vleTEK0ncOUQSxx07He+F67gk7JC2cz4+1FGx4u0sL+EQVD1W0z9tvkMqcp3qXTD Up7Da8K3JL+am7KHNO3TzqQOsspgg4++7StV+/IllSOdFiloJ5gB7tKDHMDxshQg EIgTuj6OlfLRpHrcs4VJ2vKhv20x7iFiK7kBOrZC684CxzrDalvLdHhzp9nYjM6m p6hcF7ldhpAAlVFkHMvyBWPvMMsi1pPzKAJ5RD5KCFv4eOtPtXGC+Nam/JyzcFBi 2q1onV4fsSOpHD+onLaG2ZrA2qJu2MdhF39tS3DKVRHfyesNYXZcjDC5WEKgSMsg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudegledgieelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefkughoucfu tghhihhmmhgvlhcuoehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeekgfevfefgffdvfffhtdeujedvheduudejtdekjeevuedtgfduieeghfdtvedu udenucffohhmrghinhepkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhgpdhmrghilhdqrghrtghhihhvvgdrtg homhenucfkphepkeegrddvvdelrdefiedruddvkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt necurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehiughoshgthhesihguohhstghhrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (igld-84-229-36-128.inter.net.il [84.229.36.128]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 84F2F3280063; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 03:36:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:36:35 +0300 From: Ido Schimmel To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Jakub Kicinski , Vasundhara Volam , Jiri Pirko , Michael Chan , jtoppins@redhat.com, Netdev , Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: Failing to attach bond(created with two interfaces from different NICs) to a bridge Message-ID: <20200907073635.GA2455115@shredder> References: <20200903121428.4f86ef1f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20200906111249.GA2419244@shredder.lan> <20200906101335.47b2b60b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <0502c0a4-0c2e-65d8-cd1e-860856510391@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0502c0a4-0c2e-65d8-cd1e-860856510391@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 12:23:23PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 9/6/2020 10:13 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 14:12:49 +0300 Ido Schimmel wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 12:14:28PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 12:52:25 +0530 Vasundhara Volam wrote: > > > > > Hello Jiri, > > > > > > > > > > After the following set of upstream commits, the user fails to attach > > > > > a bond to the bridge, if the user creates the bond with two interfaces > > > > > from different bnxt_en NICs. Previously bnxt_en driver does not > > > > > advertise the switch_id for legacy mode as part of > > > > > ndo_get_port_parent_id cb but with the following patches, switch_id is > > > > > returned even in legacy mode which is causing the failure. > > > > > > > > > > --------------- > > > > > 7e1146e8c10c00f859843817da8ecc5d902ea409 net: devlink: introduce > > > > > devlink_compat_switch_id_get() helper > > > > > 6605a226781eb1224c2dcf974a39eea11862b864 bnxt: pass switch ID through > > > > > devlink_port_attrs_set() > > > > > 56d9f4e8f70e6f47ad4da7640753cf95ae51a356 bnxt: remove > > > > > ndo_get_port_parent_id implementation for physical ports > > > > > ---------------- > > > > > > > > > > As there is a plan to get rid of ndo_get_port_parent_id in future, I > > > > > think there is a need to fix devlink_compat_switch_id_get() to return > > > > > the switch_id only when device is in SWITCHDEV mode and this effects > > > > > all the NICs. > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. > > > > > > > > I'm not Jiri, but I'd think that hiding switch_id from devices should > > > > not be the solution here. Especially that no NICs offload bridging > > > > today. > > > > > > > > Could you describe the team/bridge failure in detail, I'm not that > > > > familiar with this code. > > > > > > Maybe: > > > > > > br_add_slave() > > > br_add_if() > > > nbp_switchdev_mark_set() > > > dev_get_port_parent_id() > > > > > > I believe the last call will return '-ENODATA' because the two bnxt > > > netdevs member in the bond have different switch IDs. Perhaps the > > > function can be changed to return '-EOPNOTSUPP' when it's called for an > > > upper device that have multiple parent IDs beneath it: > > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c > > > index d42c9ea0c3c0..7932594ca437 100644 > > > --- a/net/core/dev.c > > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > > > @@ -8646,7 +8646,7 @@ int dev_get_port_parent_id(struct net_device *dev, > > > if (!first.id_len) > > > first = *ppid; > > > else if (memcmp(&first, ppid, sizeof(*ppid))) > > > - return -ENODATA; > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > } > > > return err; > > > > LGTM, or we could make bridge ignore ENODATA (in case the distinctions > > is useful?) > > > > I was searching for the early versions of Florian's patch set but > > I can't find it :( Florian, do you remember if there was a reason to > > fail bridge in this case? > > v3: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10798697/ > v2: https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1038907/ > v1: > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1921358.html > > I went back to check the tree before > d6abc5969463359c366d459247b90366fcd6f5c5 and the logic for return -ENODATA > was copied from switchdev_port_attr_get(): > > ... > /* Switch device port(s) may be stacked under > * bond/team/vlan dev, so recurse down to get attr on > * each port. Return -ENODATA if attr values don't > * compare across ports. > */ > > netdev_for_each_lower_dev(dev, lower_dev, iter) { > err = switchdev_port_attr_get(lower_dev, attr); > if (err) > break; > if (first.id == SWITCHDEV_ATTR_ID_UNDEFINED) > first = *attr; > else if (memcmp(&first, attr, sizeof(*attr))) > return -ENODATA; > } > > return err; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(switchdev_port_attr_get); > > the bridge code would specifically treat -EOPNOTSUPP as success and return > early, whereas other error code would be treated as a failure. > > Jiri or Ido, do you remember the reason for return -ENODATA here? I don't know about the past, but I checked all the current callers of dev_get_port_parent_id() and I think the proposed change should be OK: 1. nbp_switchdev_mark_set(): Current use case. Does not seem to be a problem 2. dev_get_port_parent_id(): Recursive call 3. netdev_port_same_parent_id(): Unaffected by this change 4. phys_switch_id_show(): Likewise. Does not recurse 5. rtnl_phys_switch_id_fill(): Likewise 6. vif_add: Does not check the error code I can test the patch in our regression and submit later this week unless you have a better suggestion. Please let me know. Thanks