On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 03:31:46PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Jarod Wilson <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:31:53AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Jarod Wilson <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> > I've got a bug report about an e1000e interface, where a vlan interface
> >> > is
> >> > set up on top of it:
> >> >
> >> > $ ip link add link ens1f0 name ens1f0.99 type vlan id 99
> >> > $ ip link set ens1f0 up
> >> > $ ip link set ens1f0.99 up
> >> > $ ip addr add 192.168.99.92 dev ens1f0.99
> >> >
> >> > At this point, I can ping another host on vlan 99, ip 192.168.99.91.
> >> > However, if I do the following:
> >> >
> >> > $ ethtool -K ens1f0 rxvlan off
> >> >
> >> > Then no traffic passes on ens1f0.99. It comes back if I toggle rxvlan on
> >> > again. I'm not sure if this is actually intended behavior, or if there's
> >> > a
> >> > lack of software vlan stripping fallback, or what, but things continue to
> >> > work if I simply don't call e1000e_vlan_strip_disable() if there are
> >> > active vlans (plagiarizing a function from the e1000 driver here) on the
> >> > interface.
> >> >
> >> > Also slipped a related-ish fix to the kerneldoc text for
> >> > e1000e_vlan_strip_disable here...
> >> >
> >> > CC: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirs...@intel.com>
> >> > CC: intel-wired-...@lists.osuosl.org
> >> > CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <ja...@redhat.com>
> >> > ---
> >> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> >> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> >> > b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> >> > index 75e6089..73f7452 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/e1000e/netdev.c
> >> > @@ -154,6 +154,16 @@ void __ew32(struct e1000_hw *hw, unsigned long reg,
> >> > u32 val)
> >> > writel(val, hw->hw_addr + reg);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +static bool e1000e_vlan_used(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >> > +{
> >> > + u16 vid;
> >> > +
> >> > + for_each_set_bit(vid, adapter->active_vlans, VLAN_N_VID)
> >> > + return true;
> >> > +
> >>
> >> I'm pretty sure this is always going to return true if 8021q is loaded
> >> because VLAN 0 is always added to the device even if no other VLANs
> >> are in use.
> >
> > Ah, hadn't considered that, I just plucked it straight from e1000.
> >
> >> > + return false;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > /**
> >> > * e1000_regdump - register printout routine
> >> > * @hw: pointer to the HW structure
> >> > @@ -2789,7 +2799,7 @@ static void e1000e_vlan_filter_enable(struct
> >> > e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > /**
> >> > - * e1000e_vlan_strip_enable - helper to disable HW VLAN stripping
> >> > + * e1000e_vlan_strip_disable - helper to disable HW VLAN stripping
> >> > * @adapter: board private structure to initialize
> >> > **/
> >> > static void e1000e_vlan_strip_disable(struct e1000_adapter *adapter)
> >> > @@ -3443,7 +3453,8 @@ static void e1000e_set_rx_mode(struct net_device
> >> > *netdev)
> >> >
> >> > ew32(RCTL, rctl);
> >> >
> >> > - if (netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX)
> >> > + if (netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_CTAG_RX ||
> >> > + e1000e_vlan_used(adapter))
> >> > e1000e_vlan_strip_enable(adapter);
> >> > else
> >> > e1000e_vlan_strip_disable(adapter);
> >>
> >> So if the VLAN tag stripping is disabled what happens that is causing
> >> the VLAN test to fail? It sounds like this might be working around a
> >> kernel bug where a VLAN created on a device that supports hardware tag
> >> stripping only supports hardware tag stripping. Maybe a better fix
> >> would be to add a fall back so if the VLAN tag is in the frame instead
> >> of stripped it still makes it to the correct spot.
> >
> > That's the main reason I labeled it as an RFC -- I wasn't sure exactly how
> > things were intended to work when the hardware stripping was disabled. It
> > seems quite plausible to me that this patch simply papers over the real
> > bug: lack of a functional software fallback. I'm not particularly up on
> > the vlan code just yet though, so I'm not yet sure where to poke next.
> > Suggestions welcomed. :)
>
> Well the software fallback should be the call to skb_vlan_untag in
> __netif_receive_skb_core. If that isn't being triggered then we
> should probably be fixing the files in the core code then.
So I've been poking at a debug-spew-laden kernel some, and skb_vlan_untag
is most definitely not getting called when rxvlan off is set. I'm still
poking around, trying to track down where things are going askew.
--
Jarod Wilson
ja...@redhat.com
