Searched hist:"88 faba20e2100c1f367133af56612742ad37df08" (Results 1 – 2 of 2) sorted by relevance
| /linux/net/dsa/ |
| H A D | switch.c | diff 88faba20e2100c1f367133af56612742ad37df08 Mon Jun 21 18:42:18 CEST 2021 Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> net: dsa: targeted MTU notifiers should only match on one port
dsa_slave_change_mtu() calls dsa_port_mtu_change() twice:
- it sends a cross-chip notifier with the MTU of the CPU port which is
used to update the DSA links.
- it sends one targeted MTU notifier which is supposed to only match the
user port on which we are changing the MTU. The "propagate_upstream"
variable is used here to bypass the cross-chip notifier system from
switch.c
But due to a mistake, the second, targeted notifier matches not only on
the user port, but also on the DSA link which is a member of the same
switch, if that exists.
And because the DSA links of the entire dst were programmed in a
previous round to the largest_mtu via a "propagate_upstream == true"
notification, then the dsa_port_mtu_change(propagate_upstream == false)
call that is immediately upcoming will break the MTU on the one DSA link
which is chip-wise local to the dp whose MTU is changing right now.
Example given this daisy chain topology:
sw0p0 sw0p1 sw0p2 sw0p3 sw0p4
[ cpu ] [ user ] [ user ] [ dsa ] [ user ]
[ x ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] [ ]
|
+---------+
|
sw1p0 sw1p1 sw1p2 sw1p3 sw1p4
[ user ] [ user ] [ user ] [ dsa ] [ dsa ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ]
ip link set sw0p1 mtu 9000
ip link set sw1p1 mtu 9000 # at this stage, sw0p1 and sw1p1 can talk
# to one another using jumbo frames
ip link set sw0p2 mtu 1500 # this programs the sw0p3 DSA link first to
# the largest_mtu of 9000, then reprograms it to
# 1500 with the "propagate_upstream == false"
# notifier, breaking communication between
# sw0p1 and sw1p1
To escape from this situation, make the targeted match really match on a
single port - the user port, and rename the "propagate_upstream"
variable to "targeted_match" to clarify the intention and avoid future
issues.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|
| H A D | port.c | diff 88faba20e2100c1f367133af56612742ad37df08 Mon Jun 21 18:42:18 CEST 2021 Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com> net: dsa: targeted MTU notifiers should only match on one port
dsa_slave_change_mtu() calls dsa_port_mtu_change() twice:
- it sends a cross-chip notifier with the MTU of the CPU port which is
used to update the DSA links.
- it sends one targeted MTU notifier which is supposed to only match the
user port on which we are changing the MTU. The "propagate_upstream"
variable is used here to bypass the cross-chip notifier system from
switch.c
But due to a mistake, the second, targeted notifier matches not only on
the user port, but also on the DSA link which is a member of the same
switch, if that exists.
And because the DSA links of the entire dst were programmed in a
previous round to the largest_mtu via a "propagate_upstream == true"
notification, then the dsa_port_mtu_change(propagate_upstream == false)
call that is immediately upcoming will break the MTU on the one DSA link
which is chip-wise local to the dp whose MTU is changing right now.
Example given this daisy chain topology:
sw0p0 sw0p1 sw0p2 sw0p3 sw0p4
[ cpu ] [ user ] [ user ] [ dsa ] [ user ]
[ x ] [ ] [ ] [ x ] [ ]
|
+---------+
|
sw1p0 sw1p1 sw1p2 sw1p3 sw1p4
[ user ] [ user ] [ user ] [ dsa ] [ dsa ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ x ]
ip link set sw0p1 mtu 9000
ip link set sw1p1 mtu 9000 # at this stage, sw0p1 and sw1p1 can talk
# to one another using jumbo frames
ip link set sw0p2 mtu 1500 # this programs the sw0p3 DSA link first to
# the largest_mtu of 9000, then reprograms it to
# 1500 with the "propagate_upstream == false"
# notifier, breaking communication between
# sw0p1 and sw1p1
To escape from this situation, make the targeted match really match on a
single port - the user port, and rename the "propagate_upstream"
variable to "targeted_match" to clarify the intention and avoid future
issues.
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
|