Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:18:44PM CEST, andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Jiri Pirko <jpirko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:54:58PM CEST, andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:54 PM, igor serebryany <igor47@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> it appears that 802.1q tagging is broken in 2.6.38 when combined with bridging. >>>> here is how to reproduce the problem: >>>> >>>> i set up an interface for the machine running 2.6.38 on my cisco router, and >>>> assign a subnet to that interface. i am using ping from the router to do the >>>> testing. i am getting all the data here with 'tcpdump -e -n' from the machine. >>>> >>>> i ping the machine from the router, and i see properly-tagged ARP requests >>>> coming in on eth0: >>>> >>>> 12:12:05.052465 00:11:20:dd:81:00 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype 802.1Q >>>> (0x8100), length 64: vlan 234, p 0, ethertype ARP, Request who-has 10.0.0.206 >>>> tell 10.0.0.205, length 46 >>>> >>>> i then create a vlan interface on the machine: >>>> >>>> vconfig add eth0 234 >>>> ifconfig eth0.234 up >>>> >>>> i tcpdump the newly-created interface, and i see the arp packets appearing on >>>> it, now properly untagged >>>> >>>> 12:14:33.549939 00:11:20:dd:81:00 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), >>>> length 60: Request who-has 10.0.0.206 tell 10.0.0.205, length 46 >>>> >>>> if i assign an ip to this interface, i can see pings being exchanged on eth0.234 >>>> >>>> 12:17:12.681079 00:11:20:dd:81:00 > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, ethertype ARP (0x0806), >>>> length 60: Request who-has 10.0.0.206 tell 10.0.0.205, length 46 >>>> 12:17:12.681090 00:30:48:fd:98:d8 > 00:11:20:dd:81:00, ethertype ARP (0x0806), >>>> length 42: Reply 10.0.0.206 is-at 00:30:48:fd:98:d8, length 28 >>>> 12:17:14.682076 00:11:20:dd:81:00 > 00:30:48:fd:98:d8, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), >>>> length 114: 10.0.0.205 > 10.0.0.206: ICMP echo request, id 24, seq 1, length 80 >>>> 12:17:14.682088 00:30:48:fd:98:d8 > 00:11:20:dd:81:00, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), >>>> length 114: 10.0.0.206 > 10.0.0.205: ICMP echo reply, id 24, seq 1, length 80 >>>> >>>> now, i want to assign eth0 to a bridge >>>> >>>> brctl addbr xenbr0 >>>> ifconfig xenbr0 up >>>> brctl addif xenbr0 eth0 >>>> >>>> i now attempt to ping the machine again. watching tcpdump on eth0.234, i don't >>>> see any of my packets anymore! >>>> >>>> instead, if i watch xenbr0 with tcpdump, i can see the tagged packets being >>>> dumped straight into xenbr0, without the vlan tags stripped out! >> >> Yep, that seems expected. rx_handler for bridge is earlier in rx path >> than vlan processing. This is was not changed in 2.6.38. This is with us >> for a long time. I plan to refuse this topo in future (not sure yet >> thought) >> > >I have no idea what version Igor was using before. Even if Igor's >upgrade as not from 2.6.37, this sounds like a regression. Well, one commit I'm thinking of which might cause this "regression" (athought I do not see that as one) is this: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=3701e51382a026cba10c60b03efabe534fba4ca4 cc'ing Jesse. Anyway. I think that on non-hw-accel vlans this is the same all the time as it is now. Jirka _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
