On Sat, Jan 30, 2021 at 21:43, DENG Qingfang <dqf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Having multiple destination ports for a unicast address does not make > sense. > Make port_db_load_purge override existent unicast portvec instead of > adding a new port bit.
Is this the layer we want to solve this problem at? What are the contents of the software FDB at this stage? Here is a quick example I tried on one of my systems: root@envoy:~# bridge fdb add 02:00:de:ad:00:01 dev eth1 static vlan 1 root@envoy:~# bridge fdb add 02:00:de:ad:00:01 dev eth2 static vlan 1 root@envoy:~# bridge fdb | grep de:ad 02:00:de:ad:00:01 dev eth2 vlan 1 self static 02:00:de:ad:00:01 dev eth1 vlan 1 self static Why does the second add operation succeed? Am I missing some magic flag? Presumably the bridge will only ever forward packets to which ever entry ends up being first in the relevant hash list. Is that not the real problem here? As it stands today, those commands will result in the following ATU config (eth1/2 being mapped to port 10/9): root@envoy:~# mvls atu ADDRESS FID STATE Q F 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 0 static - - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a 02:00:de:ad:00:01 1 static - - . . . . . . . . . 9 a ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff 1 static - - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a One might argue that this is no more wrong than what would have been set up with this patch applied. The problem is that the bridge allows this configuration in the first place.
