On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Toshiaki Makita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2017/10/04 14:12, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> From: Roopa Prabhu <[email protected]>
>>
>> This patch adds a new bridge port flag BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS to
>> suppress arp and nd flood on bridge ports. It implements
>> rfc7432, section 10.
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7432#section-10
>> for ethernet VPN deployments. It is similar to the existing
>> BR_ARP_PROXY flag but has a few semantic differences to conform
>> to EVPN standard. In case of EVPN, it is mainly used to
>> avoid flooding to tunnel ports like vxlan. Unlike the existing
>> flags it suppresses flood of all neigh discovery packets
>> (arp, nd) to tunnel ports.
>>
>> This patch adds netlink and sysfs support to set this bridge port
>> flag.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <[email protected]>
>> ---
> ...
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> index dea88a2..d8c2706 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ static inline size_t br_port_info_size(void)
>> + nla_total_size(1) /* IFLA_BRPORT_PROXYARP */
>> + nla_total_size(1) /* IFLA_BRPORT_PROXYARP_WIFI */
>> + nla_total_size(1) /* IFLA_BRPORT_VLAN_TUNNEL */
>> + + nla_total_size(1) /* IFLA_BRPORT_NEIGH_SUPPRESS */
>> + nla_total_size(sizeof(struct ifla_bridge_id)) /*
>> IFLA_BRPORT_ROOT_ID */
>> + nla_total_size(sizeof(struct ifla_bridge_id)) /*
>> IFLA_BRPORT_BRIDGE_ID */
>> + nla_total_size(sizeof(u16)) /* IFLA_BRPORT_DESIGNATED_PORT
>> */
>> @@ -210,7 +211,9 @@ static int br_port_fill_attrs(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> nla_put_u8(skb, IFLA_BRPORT_CONFIG_PENDING, p->config_pending) ||
>> nla_put_u8(skb, IFLA_BRPORT_VLAN_TUNNEL, !!(p->flags &
>> BR_VLAN_TUNNEL)) ||
>> - nla_put_u16(skb, IFLA_BRPORT_GROUP_FWD_MASK, p->group_fwd_mask))
>> + nla_put_u16(skb, IFLA_BRPORT_GROUP_FWD_MASK, p->group_fwd_mask) ||
>> + nla_put_u8(skb, IFLA_BRPORT_NEIGH_SUPPRESS, !!(p->flags &
>> + BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS)))
>
> Wouldn't it be better to make the indentation like this?
>
> ... !!(p->flags &
> BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS)))
not intentional. I think i will actually move the full condition on
the next line.
>
>> return -EMSGSIZE;
>>
>> timerval = br_timer_value(&p->message_age_timer);
>> @@ -692,6 +695,7 @@ static int br_setport(struct net_bridge_port *p, struct
>> nlattr *tb[])
>> {
>> unsigned long old_flags = p->flags;
>> bool br_vlan_tunnel_old = false;
>> + int neigh_suppress_old = 0;
>> int err;
>>
>> err = br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_MODE, BR_HAIRPIN_MODE);
>> @@ -785,6 +789,12 @@ static int br_setport(struct net_bridge_port *p, struct
>> nlattr *tb[])
>> p->group_fwd_mask = fwd_mask;
>> }
>>
>> + neigh_suppress_old = (p->flags & BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS);
>> + br_set_port_flag(p, tb, IFLA_BRPORT_NEIGH_SUPPRESS,
>> + BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS);
>> + if (neigh_suppress_old != (p->flags & BR_NEIGH_SUPPRESS))
>> + br_recalculate_neigh_suppress_enabled(p->br);
>> +
>
> You are calling br_recalculate_neigh_suppress_enabled() from within
> br_port_flags_change() immediately after this.
> I think you can just call br_set_port_flag() here.
>
>> br_port_flags_change(p, old_flags ^ p->flags);
>> return 0;
>> }
you are right, i will remove the redundant call to recalc neigh_suppress
