Yes, that sounds much like the case. So the replace of course just modifies the SW fdb entry, and then it just uses port_fdb_add() to replace HW entry I assume, which then in my case triggers SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE as the locked entry is removed. So I should not send the SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE message when removing the locked entry from port_fdb_add() function... (note: having problems with smtp.gmail.com...) On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 2:18 PM Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2022 at 02:08:41PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote: > > > > > > I think Hans is testing with mv88e6xxx which dumps entries directly from > > > HW via ndo_fdb_dump(). See dsa_slave_port_fdb_do_dump() which sets > > > NTF_SELF. > > > > > > Hans, are you seeing the entry twice? Once with 'master' and once with > > > 'self'? > > > > > > > When replacing a locked entry it looks like this: > > > > # bridge fdb show dev eth6 | grep 4c > > 00:4c:4c:4c:4c:4c vlan 1 master br0 extern_learn offload locked > > > > # bridge fdb replace 00:4c:4c:4c:4c:4c dev eth6 vlan 1 master static ; bridge fdb show dev eth6 | grep 4c > > 00:4c:4c:4c:4c:4c vlan 1 self static > > This output means that the FDB entry was deleted from the bridge driver > FDB. > > > > > The problem is then that the function > > br_fdb_find_rcu(br,eth_hdr(skb)->h_source, vid); > > , where the h_source and vid is the entry above, does not find the entry. > > My hypothesis was then that this is because of the 'self' flag that I > > see. > > br_fdb_find_rcu() does a lookup in the bridge driver FDB, but per the > output above, the entry isn't there for some reason. It's only in HW. > > Can it be that you driver is deleting these entries from the bridge > driver FDB via SWITCHDEV_FDB_DEL_TO_BRIDGE for some reason? > > > > > I am thinking that the function dsa_slave_port_fdb_do_dump() is only for > > debug, and thus does not really set any flags in the bridge modules FDB, > > but then I don't understand why the above find function does not find > > the entry?
