Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ethernet: ti: cpsw: drop vid0 configuration in dual_mac modey

[Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 05:23:09PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
>
>On 11/29/18 9:26 AM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 03:15:46PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/26/18 2:07 PM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:57:20PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/26/18 10:26 AM, Ivan Khoronzhuk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 05:46:26PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>>>>> In dual_mac mode CPSW driver uses vid1 and vid2 by default to implement
>>>>>>> dual mac mode wich are used to configure pvids for each external ports.
>>>>>>> But, historicaly, it also adds vid0 to ALE table and sets "untag" bits for both
>>>>>>> ext. ports. As result, it's imposible to use priority tagged packets in
>>>>>>> dual mac mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hence, drop vid0 configuration in dual mac mode as it's not required for dual
>>>>>>> mac mode functionality and, this way, make it possible to use priority
>>>>>>> tagged packet in dual mac mode.
>>>>>> So, now it's enabled to be added via regular ndo.
>>>>>> I have similar change in mind, but was going to send it after
>>>>>> mcast/ucast, and - enabling same vlans patch...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 things stopped me to add this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Moving it to be enabled via regular call is Ok, but in dual mac mode
>>>>>> it causes overlaps, at least while vid deletion. So decided to wait till
>>>>>> same vlans series is applied.
>>>>>
>>>>> TI driver documentation mentions this restriction
>>>>> "While adding VLAN id to the eth interfaces,
>>>>> same VLAN id should not be added in both interfaces which will lead to VLAN
>>>>> forwarding and act as switch"
>>>> It's not accurate now.
>>>> This sw bug "acting like a switch" was fixed indirectly in LKML ).
>>>> And at least for upstream version, not TISDK, desc should be updated,
>>>> but better do this when it fixed completely and merged with TISDK.
>>>>
>>>> I know about this "written" restriction
>>>> (for tiSDK, and it's not TRM after all ...),
>>>> it can be avoided and it's partly avoided now ...
>>>
>>> I'd like to clarify point about supporting same VLANs in dual_mac mode,
>>> to avoid future misunderstanding, overall: it's *not* supported as
>>> adding same VLAN to both netdevices will cause unknown unicast packets
>>> leaking between interfaces and it can't be avoided - hw limitation.
>>
>> Simple test shows no issues with ucast leaking.
>> But for current buggy ucast vlan implementation it's not possible to verify,
>> not sure but probably leaking in your case cuased by hidden toggling of
>> interface to promisc while added ucast to vlans or other reason or so.
>> Anyway I just decided to check specifically ucasts
>> (macst as you know are not normal now).
>>
>> For verification you need to apply ucast fix (including vlans) first:
>> https://git.linaro.org/people/ivan.khoronzhuk/tsn_kernel.git/log/?h=vlan_addr_flt_fix
>>
>> This is generic fix (not sure it will be approved, need try RFC) but implement
>> the same as local fix for vlan ucasts:
>> https://git.linaro.org/people/ivan.khoronzhuk/tsn_kernel.git/log/?h=ucast_vlan_fix
>>
>> Any of those are correct. I've used generic one.
>> Applied the following scheme:
>>
>>                      +--------------------------+
>>                      | host 74:DA:EA:47:7D:9C   |
>>                      +--------------------------+
>>
>>                         +---------------------+
>>              |       am572 evm     |
>>                         |    eth0      eth1   |
>>                         +----------+----------+
>>                         | eth0.400 | eth1.400 |
>>                         +----------+----------+
>>                             ^          |
>>                             |          |  +-----------+
>> +-----------------+        |          |  |     PC    |
>> | BBB eth0.400    |--------+          +->| Wireshark |
>> +-----------------+                      +-----------+
>>
>>
>> 1) Configure vlans on am572x evm
>> ip link add link eth0 name eth0.400 type vlan id 400
>> ip link add link eth1 name eth1.400 type vlan id 400
>>
>> 2) On BBB side:
>> # ip link add link eth0 name eth0.400 type vlan id 400
>> Send ucast vlan traffic to the am572 evm, vlan ucast address is unreq on am572.
>> # ./plget -i eth0.400 -t ptpl2 -m tx-lat -n 160 -s 10 -a 74:DA:EA:47:7D:66
>> # ./plget -i eth0.400 -t ptpl2 -m tx-lat -n 160 -s 10 -a 18:03:73:66:87:42
>>
>> 3) Observe silence on PC wireshark.
>>
>> Thus, no see issues with this.
>>
>> PS: I'm sure in plget tool, you can use your own.
>
>I'm using packeth to generate udp packets (vlan) src=PC dst=unknown
>if there is record in ALE table which looks like:
>type: vlan , vid = 100, untag_force = 0x0, reg_mcast = 0x7, unreg_mcast = 0x0, member_list = 0x7
>then above udp packet will be forwarded to BBB.
Agree, seems no normal way to avoid ucast leak.

>
>
>
>-- 
>regards,
>-grygorii

-- 
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk