Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 1/4] net: bridge: add fdb flag to extent locked port feature

[Hans Schultz]

On ons, maj 25, 2022 at 11:06, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 24/05/2022 19:21, Hans Schultz wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Hans,
>>> So this approach has a fundamental problem, f->dst is changed without any synchronization
>>> you cannot rely on it and thus you cannot account for these entries properly. We must be very
>>> careful if we try to add any new synchronization not to affect performance as well.
>>> More below...
>>>
>>>> @@ -319,6 +326,9 @@ static void fdb_delete(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_bridge_fdb_entry *f,
>>>>  	if (test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &f->flags))
>>>>  		fdb_del_hw_addr(br, f->key.addr.addr);
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (test_bit(BR_FDB_ENTRY_LOCKED, &f->flags) && !test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &f->flags))
>>>> +		atomic_dec(&f->dst->locked_entry_cnt);
>>>
>>> Sorry but you cannot do this for multiple reasons:
>>>  - f->dst can be NULL
>>>  - f->dst changes without any synchronization
>>>  - there is no synchronization between fdb's flags and its ->dst
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>  Nik
>> 
>> Hi Nik,
>> 
>> if a port is decoupled from the bridge, the locked entries would of
>> course be invalid, so maybe if adding and removing a port is accounted
>> for wrt locked entries and the count of locked entries, would that not
>> work?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Hans
>
> Hi Hans,
> Unfortunately you need the correct amount of locked entries per-port if you want
> to limit their number per-port, instead of globally. So you need a
> consistent

Hi Nik,
the used dst is a port structure, so it is per-port and not globally.

Best,
Hans

> fdb view with all its attributes when changing its dst in this case, which would
> require new locking because you have multiple dependent struct fields and it will
> kill roaming/learning scalability. I don't think this use case is worth the complexity it
> will bring, so I'd suggest an alternative - you can monitor the number of locked entries
> per-port from a user-space agent and disable port learning or some similar solution that
> doesn't require any complex kernel changes. Is the limit a requirement to add the feature?
>
> I have an idea how to do it and to minimize the performance hit if it really is needed
> but it'll add a lot of complexity which I'd like to avoid if possible.
>
> Cheers,
>  Nik