Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 01:45:15PM CEST, [email protected] wrote: >On 01/09/17 12:22, Ido Schimmel wrote: >> Commit 6bc506b4fb06 ("bridge: switchdev: Add forward mark support for >> stacked devices") added the 'offload_fwd_mark' bit to the skb in order >> to allow drivers to indicate to the bridge driver that they already >> forwarded the packet in L2. >> >> In case the bit is set, before transmitting the packet from each port, >> the port's mark is compared with the mark stored in the skb's control >> block. If both marks are equal, we know the packet arrived from a switch >> device that already forwarded the packet and it's not re-transmitted. >> >> However, if the packet is transmitted from the bridge device itself >> (e.g., br0), we should clear the 'offload_fwd_mark' bit as the mark >> stored in the skb's control block isn't valid. >> >> This scenario can happen in rare cases where a packet was trapped during >> L3 forwarding and forwarded by the kernel to a bridge device. >> >> Fixes: 6bc506b4fb06 ("bridge: switchdev: Add forward mark support for >> stacked devices") >> Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]> >> Reported-by: Yotam Gigi <[email protected]> >> Tested-by: Yotam Gigi <[email protected]> >> Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <[email protected]> >> --- >> net/bridge/br_device.c | 3 +++ >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_device.c b/net/bridge/br_device.c >> index 861ae2a165f4..5a7be3bddfa9 100644 >> --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c >> +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c >> @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ netdev_tx_t br_dev_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct >> net_device *dev) >> brstats->tx_bytes += skb->len; >> u64_stats_update_end(&brstats->syncp); >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_SWITCHDEV >> + skb->offload_fwd_mark = 0; >> +#endif >> BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->brdev = dev; >> >> skb_reset_mac_header(skb); >> > >Good catch, just one minor nit since there is already an ifdef >switchdev/else in br_private.h, why not make this a helper and avoid the >ifdef/endif in here ? Currently there is no ifdef switchdev anywhere else.
I think it would be better to convert this to a helper in -net-next and take the patch as it is for -net
