On Sat Jan 09 2021, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > From: Vladimir Oltean > > The call path of a switchdev VLAN addition to the bridge looks something > like this today: > > nbp_vlan_init > | __br_vlan_set_default_pvid > | | | > | | br_afspec | > | | | | > | | v | > | | br_process_vlan_info | > | | | | > | | v | > | | br_vlan_info | > | | / \ / > | | / \ / > | | / \ / > | | / \ / > v v v v v > nbp_vlan_add br_vlan_add ------+ > | ^ ^ | | > | / | | | > | / / / | > \ br_vlan_get_master/ / v > \ ^ / / br_vlan_add_existing > \ | / / | > \ | / / / > \ | / / / > \ | / / / > \ | / / / > v | | v / > __vlan_add / > / | / > / | / > v | / > __vlan_vid_add | / > \ | / > v v v > br_switchdev_port_vlan_add > > The ranges UAPI was introduced to the bridge in commit bdced7ef7838 > ("bridge: support for multiple vlans and vlan ranges in setlink and > dellink requests") (Jan 10 2015). But the VLAN ranges (parsed in br_afspec) > have always been passed one by one, through struct bridge_vlan_info > tmp_vinfo, to br_vlan_info. So the range never went too far in depth. > > Then Scott Feldman introduced the switchdev_port_bridge_setlink function > in commit 47f8328bb1a4 ("switchdev: add new switchdev bridge setlink"). > That marked the introduction of the SWITCHDEV_OBJ_PORT_VLAN, which made > full use of the range. But switchdev_port_bridge_setlink was called like > this: > > br_setlink > -> br_afspec > -> switchdev_port_bridge_setlink > > Basically, the switchdev and the bridge code were not tightly integrated. > Then commit 41c498b9359e ("bridge: restore br_setlink back to original") > came, and switchdev drivers were required to implement > .ndo_bridge_setlink = switchdev_port_bridge_setlink for a while. > > In the meantime, commits such as 0944d6b5a2fa ("bridge: try switchdev op > first in __vlan_vid_add/del") finally made switchdev penetrate the > br_vlan_info() barrier and start to develop the call path we have today. > But remember, br_vlan_info() still receives VLANs one by one. > > Then Arkadi Sharshevsky refactored the switchdev API in 2017 in commit > 29ab586c3d83 ("net: switchdev: Remove bridge bypass support from > switchdev") so that drivers would not implement .ndo_bridge_setlink any > longer. The switchdev_port_bridge_setlink also got deleted. > This refactoring removed the parallel bridge_setlink implementation from > switchdev, and left the only switchdev VLAN objects to be the ones > offloaded from __vlan_vid_add (basically RX filtering) and __vlan_add > (the latter coming from commit 9c86ce2c1ae3 ("net: bridge: Notify about > bridge VLANs")). > > That is to say, today the switchdev VLAN object ranges are not used in > the kernel. Refactoring the above call path is a bit complicated, when > the bridge VLAN call path is already a bit complicated. > > Let's go off and finish the job of commit 29ab586c3d83 by deleting the > bogus iteration through the VLAN ranges from the drivers. Some aspects > of this feature never made too much sense in the first place. For > example, what is a range of VLANs all having the BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_PVID > flag supposed to mean, when a port can obviously have a single pvid? > This particular configuration _is_ denied as of commit 6623c60dc28e > ("bridge: vlan: enforce no pvid flag in vlan ranges"), but from an API > perspective, the driver still has to play pretend, and only offload the > vlan->vid_end as pvid. And the addition of a switchdev VLAN object can > modify the flags of another, completely unrelated, switchdev VLAN > object! (a VLAN that is PVID will invalidate the PVID flag from whatever > other VLAN had previously been offloaded with switchdev and had that > flag. Yet switchdev never notifies about that change, drivers are > supposed to guess). > > Nonetheless, having a VLAN range in the API makes error handling look > scarier than it really is - unwinding on errors and all of that. > When in reality, no one really calls this API with more than one VLAN. > It is all unnecessary complexity. > > And despite appearing pretentious (two-phase transactional model and > all), the switchdev API is really sloppy because the VLAN addition and > removal operations are not paired with one another (you can add a VLAN > 100 times and delete it just once). The bridge notifies through > switchdev of a VLAN addition not only when the flags of an existing VLAN > change, but also when nothing changes. There are switchdev drivers out > there who don't like adding a VLAN that has already been added, and > those checks don't really belong at driver level. But the fact that the > API contains ranges is yet another factor that prevents this from being > addressed in the future. > > Of the existing switchdev pieces of hardware, it appears that only > Mellanox Spectrum supports offloading more than one VLAN at a time, > through mlxsw_sp_port_vlan_set. I have kept that code internal to the > driver, because there is some more bookkeeping that makes use of it, but > I deleted it from the switchdev API. But since the switchdev support for > ranges has already been de facto deleted by a Mellanox employee and > nobody noticed for 4 years, I'm going to assume it's not a biggie. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean > Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel # switchdev and mlxsw Reviewed-by: Kurt Kanzenbach # hellcreek