Le 26/03/2011 16:42, Michał Mirosław a écrit :
> 2011/3/26 Jiri Pirko<jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 01:20:22PM CET, nicolas.2p.debian@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> Le 23/03/2011 22:13, Leonardo Borda a écrit :
>>>> Thank you for answering my question.
>>>> Actually this is what I want to achieve:
>>>>
>>>> eth0----+ +----bond0.100----br0-100---{+virtual machines
>>>> | |
>>>> +----bond0----+----br0---(LAN)
>>>> | |
>>>> eth1----+ +----bond0.200----br0-200---{+virtual machines
>>>
>>> Hi Leonardo,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure recent kernels allow for a given interface to be a port
>>> for a bridge and the base interface for vlan interfaces at the same
>>> time. This might be particularly true for 2.6.38 or 2.6.38+, because
>>> of the new rx_handler usage.
>>
>> This topology is not legit and should/will be prohibited.
>>
>> Only consider that you have + br0.100 device on top of br0. Where should
>> the packet go?
>>
>> I suggest to consider topology change.
>
> It should be possible to have bridge for untagged (or 802.1p only)
> packets independent of 802.1q tagged packets. I wonder if tag 0
> devices should be expanded to have a flag that will enable handling
> untagged packets by it.
Isn't the BROUTING chain of the broute table of ebtables designed exactly for that?
I think DROPing in this chain should allow delivery to VLAN:
In br_input.c :
rhook = rcu_dereference(br_should_route_hook);
if (rhook) {
if ((*rhook)(skb)) {
*pskb = skb;
return RX_HANDLER_PASS;
}
RX_HANDLER_PASS causes the skb to be normally delivered in __netif_receive_skb.
Leonardo, would you please try to DROP vlan tagged packets in the BROUTING chain of the broute table
of ebtables?
Nicolas.
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
