On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 04:14:28PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On 2019/09/03 22:36, Zahari Doychev wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 08:37:36PM +0900, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> > > Hi Zahari,
> > >
> > > Sorry for reviewing this late.
> > >
> > > On 2019/09/03 3:09, Zahari Doychev wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > @@ -466,13 +466,14 @@ static bool __allowed_ingress(const struct net_bridge *br,
> > > > /* Tagged frame */
> > > > if (skb->vlan_proto != br->vlan_proto) {
> > > > /* Protocol-mismatch, empty out vlan_tci for new tag */
> > > > - skb_push(skb, ETH_HLEN);
> > > > + skb_push(skb, skb->mac_len);
> > > > skb = vlan_insert_tag_set_proto(skb, skb->vlan_proto,
> > > > skb_vlan_tag_get(skb));
> > >
> > > I think we should insert vlan at skb->data, i.e. mac_header + mac_len, while this
> > > function inserts the tag at mac_header + ETH_HLEN which is not always the correct
> > > offset.
> >
> > Maybe I am misunderstanding the concern here but this should make sure that
> > the VLAN tag from the skb is move back in the payload as the outer most tag.
> > So it should follow the ethernet header. It looks like this e.g.,:
> >
> > VLAN1 in skb:
> > +------+------+-------+
> > | DMAC | SMAC | ETYPE |
> > +------+------+-------+
> >
> > VLAN1 moved to payload:
> > +------+------+-------+-------+
> > | DMAC | SMAC | VLAN1 | ETYPE |
> > +------+------+-------+-------+
> >
> > VLAN2 in skb:
> > +------+------+-------+-------+
> > | DMAC | SMAC | VLAN1 | ETYPE |
> > +------+------+-------+-------+
> >
> > VLAN2 moved to payload:
> >
> > +------+------+-------+-------+
> > | DMAC | SMAC | VLAN2 | VLAN1 | ....
> > +------+------+-------+-------+
> >
> > Doing the skb push with mac_len makes sure that VLAN tag is inserted in the
> > correct offset. For mac_len == ETH_HLEN this does not change the current
> > behaviour.
>
> Reordering VLAN headers here does not look correct to me. If skb->data points to ETH+VLAN,
> then we should insert the vlan at the offset.
> Vlan devices with reorder_hdr disabled produce packets whose mac_len includes ETH+VLAN header,
> and they expects vlan insertion after the outer vlan header.
I see so in this case we should handle differently as it seems sometimes
we have to insert after or before the tag in the packet. I am not quite sure
if this is possible to be detected here. I was trying to do bridging with VLAN
devices with reorder_hdr disabled working but somehow I was not able to get
mac_len longer then ETH_HLEN in all cases that I tried. Can you provide some
example how can I try this out? It will really help me to understand the
problem better.
>
> Also I'm not sure there is standard ethernet header in mac_len, as mac_len is not ETH_HLEN.
> E.g. tun devices can produce vlan packets without ehternet header.
How is the bridge forwarding decision done in this case when there are no
MAC addresses, vlan based only?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > if (unlikely(!skb))
> > > > return false;
> > > > skb_pull(skb, ETH_HLEN);
> > >
> > > Now skb->data is mac_header + ETH_HLEN which would be broken when mac_len is not
> > > ETH_HLEN?
> >
> > I thought it would be better to point in this case to the outer tag as otherwise
> > if mac_len is used the skb->data will point to the next tag which I find somehow
> > inconsistent or do you see some case where this can cause problems?
>
> Vlan devices with reorder_hdr off will break because it relies on skb->data offset
> as I described in the previous discussion.
I also see in vlan_do_receive that the VLAN tag is moved to the payload when
reorder_hdr is off and the vlan_dev is not a bridge port. So it seems that
I am misunderstanding the reorder_hdr option so if you can give me some more
details about how it is supposed to be used will be highly appreciated.
Thanks
Zahari
>
> Toshiaki Makita
