On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 6:55 PM Murali Karicheri <m-kariche...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Willem,
>
> On 9/4/20 11:52 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 12:30 AM Murali Karicheri <m-kariche...@ti.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> On 9/2/20 12:14 PM, Murali Karicheri wrote:
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> On 9/1/20 3:54 PM, Murali Karicheri wrote:
> >>>> This series add support for creating VLAN interface over HSR or
> >>>> PRP interface. Typically industrial networks uses VLAN in
> >>>> deployment and this capability is needed to support these
> >>>> networks.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is tested using two TI AM572x IDK boards connected back
> >>>> to back over CPSW ports (eth0 and eth1).
> >>>>
> >>>> Following is the setup
> >>>>
> >>>> Physical Setup
> >>>> ++++++++++++++
> >>>> _______________ (CPSW) _______________
> >>>> | |----eth0-----| |
> >>>> |TI AM572x IDK1| | TI AM572x IDK2|
> >>>> |______________|----eth1-----|_______________|
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Network Topolgy
> >>>> +++++++++++++++
> >>>>
> >>>> TI AM571x IDK TI AM572x IDK
> >>>>
> >>>> 192.168.100.10 CPSW ports 192.168.100.20
> >>>> IDK-1 IDK-2
> >>>> hsr0/prp0.100--| 192.168.2.10 |--eth0--| 192.168.2.20 |--hsr0/prp0.100
> >>>> |----hsr0/prp0--| |---hsr0/prp0--|
> >>>> hsr0/prp0.101--| |--eth1--| |--hsr0/prp0/101
> >>>>
> >>>> 192.168.101.10 192.168.101.20
> >>>>
> >>>> Following tests:-
> >>>> - create hsr or prp interface and ping the interface IP address
> >>>> and verify ping is successful.
> >>>> - Create 2 VLANs over hsr or prp interface on both IDKs (VID 100 and
> >>>> 101). Ping between the IP address of the VLAN interfaces
> >>>> - Do iperf UDP traffic test with server on one IDK and client on the
> >>>> other. Do this using 100 and 101 subnet IP addresses
> >>>> - Dump /proc/net/vlan/{hsr|prp}0.100 and verify frames are transmitted
> >>>> and received at these interfaces.
> >>>> - Delete the vlan and hsr/prp interface and verify interfaces are
> >>>> removed cleanly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Logs for IDK-1 at https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/NxF83yZFDX/
> >>>> Logs for IDK-2 at https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/YBXBcsPgVK/
> >>>>
> >>>> Murali Karicheri (1):
> >>>> net: hsr/prp: add vlan support
> >>>>
> >>>> net/hsr/hsr_device.c | 4 ----
> >>>> net/hsr/hsr_forward.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>> I am not sure if the packet flow is right for this?
> >>>
> >>> VLAN over HSR frame format is like this.
> >>>
> >>> <Start of Frame><VLAN tag><HSR Tag><IP><CRC>
> >>>
> >>> My ifconfig stats shows both hsr and hsr0.100 interfaces receiving
> >>> frames.
> >>>
> >>> So I did a WARN_ON() in HSR driver before frame is forwarded to upper
> >>> layer.
> >>>
> >>> a0868495local@uda0868495:~/Projects/upstream-kernel$ git diff
> >>> diff --git a/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c b/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
> >>> index de21df30b0d9..545a3cd8c71b 100644
> >>> --- a/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
> >>> +++ b/net/hsr/hsr_forward.c
> >>> @@ -415,9 +415,11 @@ static void hsr_forward_do(struct hsr_frame_info
> >>> *frame)
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> skb->dev = port->dev;
> >>> - if (port->type == HSR_PT_MASTER)
> >>> + if (port->type == HSR_PT_MASTER) {
> >>> + if (skb_vlan_tag_present(skb))
> >>> + WARN_ON(1);
> >>> hsr_deliver_master(skb, port->dev,
> >>> frame->node_src);
> >>> - else
> >>> + } else
> >>> hsr_xmit(skb, port, frame);
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> And I get the trace shown below.
> >>>
> >>> [ 275.125431] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 0 at net/hsr/hsr_forward.c:420
> >>> hsr_forward_skb+0x460/0x564
> >>> [ 275.133822] Modules linked in: snd_soc_omap_hdmi snd_soc_ti_sdma
> >>> snd_soc_core snd_pcm_dmaengine snd_pcm snd_time4
> >>> [ 275.199705] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Tainted: G W
> >>> 5.9.0-rc1-00658-g473e463812c2-dirty #8
> >>> [ 275.209573] Hardware name: Generic DRA74X (Flattened Device Tree)
> >>> [ 275.215703] [<c011177c>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c010b6f0>]
> >>> (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
> >>> [ 275.223487] [<c010b6f0>] (show_stack) from [<c055690c>]
> >>> (dump_stack+0xc4/0xe4)
> >>> [ 275.230747] [<c055690c>] (dump_stack) from [<c01386ac>]
> >>> (__warn+0xc0/0xf4)
> >>> [ 275.237656] [<c01386ac>] (__warn) from [<c0138a3c>]
> >>> (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x58/0xb8)
> >>> [ 275.245177] [<c0138a3c>] (warn_slowpath_fmt) from [<c09564bc>]
> >>> (hsr_forward_skb+0x460/0x564)
> >>> [ 275.253657] [<c09564bc>] (hsr_forward_skb) from [<c0955534>]
> >>> (hsr_handle_frame+0x15c/0x190)
> >>> [ 275.262047] [<c0955534>] (hsr_handle_frame) from [<c07c6704>]
> >>> (__netif_receive_skb_core+0x23c/0xc88)
> >>> [ 275.271223] [<c07c6704>] (__netif_receive_skb_core) from [<c07c7180>]
> >>> (__netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x30/0x74)
> >>> [ 275.281266] [<c07c7180>] (__netif_receive_skb_one_core) from
> >>> [<c07c72a4>] (netif_receive_skb+0x50/0x1c4)
> >>> [ 275.290793] [<c07c72a4>] (netif_receive_skb) from [<c071a55c>]
> >>> (cpsw_rx_handler+0x230/0x308)
> >>> [ 275.299272] [<c071a55c>] (cpsw_rx_handler) from [<c0715ee8>]
> >>> (__cpdma_chan_process+0xf4/0x188)
> >>> [ 275.307925] [<c0715ee8>] (__cpdma_chan_process) from [<c0717294>]
> >>> (cpdma_chan_process+0x3c/0x5c)
> >>> [ 275.316754] [<c0717294>] (cpdma_chan_process) from [<c071dd14>]
> >>> (cpsw_rx_mq_poll+0x44/0x98)
> >>> [ 275.325145] [<c071dd14>] (cpsw_rx_mq_poll) from [<c07c8ae0>]
> >>> (net_rx_action+0xf0/0x400)
> >>> [ 275.333185] [<c07c8ae0>] (net_rx_action) from [<c0101370>]
> >>> (__do_softirq+0xf0/0x3ac)
> >>> [ 275.340965] [<c0101370>] (__do_softirq) from [<c013f5ec>]
> >>> (irq_exit+0xa8/0xe4)
> >>> [ 275.348224] [<c013f5ec>] (irq_exit) from [<c0199344>]
> >>> (__handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0xe0)
> >>> [ 275.356093] [<c0199344>] (__handle_domain_irq) from [<c056f8fc>]
> >>> (gic_handle_irq+0x4c/0xa8)
> >>> [ 275.364481] [<c056f8fc>] (gic_handle_irq) from [<c0100b6c>]
> >>> (__irq_svc+0x6c/0x90)
> >>> [ 275.371996] Exception stack(0xc0e01f18 to 0xc0e01f60)
> >>>
> >>> Shouldn't it show vlan_do_receive() ?
> >>>
> >>> if (skb_vlan_tag_present(skb)) {
> >>> if (pt_prev) {
> >>> ret = deliver_skb(skb, pt_prev, orig_dev);
> >>> pt_prev = NULL;
> >>> }
> >>> if (vlan_do_receive(&skb))
> >>> goto another_round;
> >>> else if (unlikely(!skb))
> >>> goto out;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>
> >> I did an ftrace today and I find vlan_do_receive() is called for the
> >> incoming frames before passing SKB to hsr_handle_frame(). If someone
> >> can review this, it will help. Thanks.
> >>
> >> https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/CbRzXjwjR5/
> >
> > hsr_handle_frame is an rx_handler called after
> > __netif_receive_skb_core called vlan_do_receive and jumped back to
> > another_round.
>
> Yes. hsr_handle_frame() is a rx_handler() after the above code that
> does vlan_do_receive(). The ftrace shows vlan_do_receive() is called
> followed by call to hsr_handle_frame(). From ifconfig I can see both
> hsr and vlan interface stats increments by same count. So I assume,
> vlan_do_receive() is called initially and it removes the tag, update
> stats and then return true and go for another round. Do you think that
> is the case?
That was my understanding.
> vlan_do_receive() calls vlan_find_dev(skb->dev, vlan_proto, vlan_id)
> to retrieve the real netdevice (real device). However VLAN device is
> attached to hsr device (real device), but SKB will have HSR slave
> Ethernet netdevice (in our case it is cpsw device) and vlan_find_dev()
> would have failed since there is no vlan_info in cpsw netdev struct. So
> below code in vlan_do_receive() should have failed and return false.
>
> vlan_dev = vlan_find_dev(skb->dev, vlan_proto, vlan_id);
> if (!vlan_dev)
> return false;
>
> So how does it goes for another_round ? May be vlan_find_dev is
> finding the hsr netdevice?
It's good to answer this through code inspection and/or
instrumentation. I do not have the answer immediately either.
There certainly is prior art in having vlan with an rx_handler,
judging from the netif_is_macvlan_port(vlan_dev) and
netif_is_bridge_port(vlan_dev) helpers in vlan_do_receive.
> I am not an expert and so the question. Probably I can put a
> traceprintk() to confirm this, but if someone can clarify this
> it will be great. But for that, I will spin v2 with the above comments
> addressed as in my reply and post.
Please don't send a patch before we understand this part.
