Am 04.04.21 um 02:02 schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 07:14:56PM +0200, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> Am 03.04.21 um 16:49 schrieb Andrew Lunn:
>>>> @@ -31,6 +96,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *ar9331_tag_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>> __le16 *phdr;
>>>> u16 hdr;
>>>>
>>>> + if (dp->stp_state == BR_STATE_BLOCKING) {
>>>> + /* TODO: should we reflect it in the stats? */
>>>> + netdev_warn_once(dev, "%s:%i dropping blocking packet\n",
>>>> + __func__, __LINE__);
>>>> + return NULL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> phdr = skb_push(skb, AR9331_HDR_LEN);
>>>>
>>>> hdr = FIELD_PREP(AR9331_HDR_VERSION_MASK, AR9331_HDR_VERSION);
>>>
>>> Hi Oleksij
>>>
>>> This change does not seem to fit with what this patch is doing.
>>
>> done
>>
>>> I also think it is wrong. You still need BPDU to pass through a
>>> blocked port, otherwise spanning tree protocol will be unstable.
>>
>> We need a better filter, otherwise, in case of software based STP, we are leaking packages on
>> blocked port. For example DHCP do trigger lots of spam in the kernel log.
>
> I have no idea whatsoever what 'software based STP' is, if you have
> hardware-accelerated forwarding.
I do not mean hardware-accelerated forwarding, i mean
hardware-accelerated STP port state helpers.
>> I'll drop STP patch for now, it will be better to make a generic soft STP for all switches without
>> HW offloading. For example ksz9477 is doing SW based STP in similar way.
>
> How about we discuss first about what your switch is not doing properly?
> Have you debugged more than just watching the bridge change port states?
> As Andrew said, a port needs to accept and send link-local frames
> regardless of the STP state. In the BLOCKING state it must send no other
> frames and have address learning disabled. Is this what's happening, is
> the switch forwarding frames towards a BLOCKING port?
The switch is not forwarding BPDU frame to the CPU port. So, the linux
bridge will stack by cycling different state of the port where loop was
detected.
--
Regards,
Oleksij
