On 2017/11/01 9:10, Keller, Jacob E wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Keller, Jacob E >> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:33 PM >> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>; vyase...@redhat.com; >> netdev@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: Malek, Patryk <patryk.ma...@intel.com> >> Subject: RE: removing bridge in vlan_filtering mode requests delete of >> attached >> ports main MAC address >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: netdev-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:netdev- >> ow...@vger.kernel.org] >>> On Behalf Of Keller, Jacob E >>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:27 PM >>> To: vyase...@redhat.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org >>> Cc: Malek, Patryk <patryk.ma...@intel.com> >>> Subject: RE: removing bridge in vlan_filtering mode requests delete of >>> attached >>> ports main MAC address >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:vyase...@redhat.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 3:22 AM >>>> To: Keller, Jacob E <jacob.e.kel...@intel.com>; netdev@vger.kernel.org >>>> Cc: Malek, Patryk <patryk.ma...@intel.com> >>>> Subject: Re: removing bridge in vlan_filtering mode requests delete of >> attached >>>> ports main MAC address >>>> >>>> Hi Jake >>>> >>>> I think adding a !fdb->local should work. local fdb contain the address of >>> assigned >>>> to >>>> the ports of the bridge and those shouldn't be directly removed. >>>> >>>> If that works, that looks like the right solution. >>>> >>>> -vlad >>>> >>> >>> So this does prevent us from removing the port's address. However, if I add >> two >>> devices to the bridge, then after removing the bridge, each device now keeps >>> both permanent addresses in their list, which isn't what we want is it? >>> >>> Do we even want to assign the local fdb addresses to every port? >>> >>> Obviously, I don't fully understand this code, so I think I'm missing >>> something >>> here. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jake >>> >> >> Ok, I tried this again, and it didn't end up crossing the local device >> addresses to >> each port. I'm not sure how that happened the first time yet, so maybe it is >> correct to skip removing local addresses... but if we skip removing them, >> wouldn't >> we want to skip adding them too? >> >> Thanks, >> Jake > > There's definitely some weirdness going on, because I've been able to get the > local port addresses added to the wrong device under some circumstances. It > seems to be some sort of race condition, since I can't reliably re-create the > scenario. > > Either way, some more insight on what the correct fix here would be nice. > > I'm thinking we want to skip adding or removing local addresses when > switching into the static mode configuration.
If we skip adding them, we cannot receive frames which should be received on the bridge device during non-promiscuous mode. -- Toshiaki Makita
