On 5/13/2020 9:17 AM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 18:49, Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/2020 8:37 AM, DENG Qingfang wrote:
>>> Currently, setting a bridge's self PVID to other value and deleting
>>> the default VID 1 renders untagged ports of that VLAN unable to talk to
>>> the CPU port:
>>>
>>> bridge vlan add dev br0 vid 2 pvid untagged self
>>> bridge vlan del dev br0 vid 1 self
>>> bridge vlan add dev sw0p0 vid 2 pvid untagged
>>> bridge vlan del dev sw0p0 vid 1
>>> # br0 cannot send untagged frames out of sw0p0 anymore
>>>
>>> That is because the CPU port is set to security mode and its PVID is
>>> still 1, and untagged frames are dropped due to VLAN member violation.
>>>
>>> Set the CPU port to fallback mode so untagged frames can pass through.
>>
>> How about if the bridge has vlan_filtering=1? The use case you present
>> seems to be valid to me, that is, you may create a VLAN just for the
>> user ports and not have the CPU port be part of it at all.
>>
>
> What Qingfang is doing is in effect (but not by intention) removing
> the front panel port sw0p0 from the membership list of the CPU port's
> pvid. What you seem to be thinking of (VLAN of which the CPU is not a
> member of) does not seem to be supported in DSA at the moment.
Indeed and I replied to Qingfang already that I had misunderstood his
patch originally.
>
> As a fix, there's nothing wrong with the patch actually, I don't even
> know how it would work otherwise. DSA doesn't change the pvid of the
> CPU port when the pvid of a slave changes, because 4 slave ports could
> have 4 different pvids and the CPU port pvid would keep changing.
> Fallback mode should only apply on ingress from CPU, so there's no
> danger really.
Agreed.
Reviewed-by: Florian Fainelli <f.faine...@gmail.com>
--
Florian
