On 9/17/19 3:32 PM, Iwan R Timmer wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:55:05PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:23:01PM +0200, Iwan R Timmer wrote: >>> Add support for configuring port mirroring through the cls_matchall >>> classifier. We do a full ingress and/or egress capture towards the >>> capture port, configured with set_egress_port. >> >> Hi Iwan >> >> This looks good as far as it goes. >> >> Have you tried adding/deleting multiple port mirrors? Do we need to >> limit how many are added. A quick look at the datasheet, you can >> define one egress mirror port and one ingress mirror port. I think you >> can have multiple ports mirroring ingress to that one ingress mirror >> port. And you can have multiple port mirroring egress to the one >> egress mirror port. We should add code to check this, and return >> -EBUSY if the existing configuration prevents a new mirror being >> configured. >> >> Thanks >> Andrew > > Hi Andrew, > > I only own a simple 5 ports switch (88E6176) which has no problem of > mirroring the other ports to a single port. Except for a bandwith > shortage ofcourse. While I thought I checked adding and removing ports, > I seemed to forgot to check removing ingress traffic as it will now > disable mirroring egress traffic. Searching for how I can distinct > ingress from egress mirroring in port_mirror_del, I saw there is a > variable in the mirror struct called ingress. Which seems strange, > because why is it a seperate argument to the port_mirror_add function? > > Origally I planned to be able to set the egress and ingress mirror > seperatly. But in my laziness when I saw there already was a function > to configure the destination port this functionality was lost. > > Because the other drivers which implemented the port_mirror_add (b53 and > ksz9477) also lacks additional checks to prevent new mirror filters from > breaking previous ones I assumed they were not necessary.
That does sound like a bug indeed, I just looked at b53_mirror_add() again and clearing the MIRROR_MASK before setting up the new port clearly sounds wrong, at least on ingress. > > At least I will soon sent a new version with at least the issue of > removing mirror ingress traffic fixed and the ability to define a > seperate ingress and egress port. > > Regards, > Iwan > -- Florian
