[net-next] bridge: respect RFC2863 operational state

The bridge link detection should follow the operational state
of the lower device, rather than the carrier bit. This allows devices
like tunnels that are controlled by userspace control plane to work
with bridge STP link management.


Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 07:28:54AM CET, shemminger@vyatta.com wrote:
>The bridge link detection should follow the operational state
>of the lower device, rather than the carrier bit. This allows devices
>like tunnels that are controlled by userspace control plane to work
>with bridge STP link management.
>
>
>Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
>
>
>--- a/net/bridge/br_if.c	2012-10-25 09:11:15.627272524 -0700
>+++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c	2012-12-14 08:58:14.329847361 -0800
>@@ -66,14 +66,14 @@ void br_port_carrier_check(struct net_br
> 	struct net_device *dev = p->dev;
> 	struct net_bridge *br = p->br;
> 
>-	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_carrier_ok(dev))
>+	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_oper_up(dev))
> 		p->path_cost = port_cost(dev);
> 
> 	if (!netif_running(br->dev))
> 		return;
> 
> 	spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
>-	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_carrier_ok(dev)) {
>+	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_oper_up(dev))
> 		if (p->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED)
> 			br_stp_enable_port(p);
> 	} else {
>--- a/net/bridge/br_notify.c	2012-10-25 09:11:15.631272484 -0700
>+++ b/net/bridge/br_notify.c	2012-12-14 08:57:36.954222724 -0800
>@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int br_device_event(struct notifi
> 		break;
> 
> 	case NETDEV_UP:
>-		if (netif_carrier_ok(dev) && (br->dev->flags & IFF_UP)) {
>+		if (netif_running(br->dev) && netif_oper_up(dev)) {
> 			spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
> 			br_stp_enable_port(p);
> 			spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock);
>--
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Reviewed-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:28:54PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> The bridge link detection should follow the operational state
> of the lower device, rather than the carrier bit. This allows devices
> like tunnels that are controlled by userspace control plane to work
> with bridge STP link management.
> 
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
> 
> 
> --- a/net/bridge/br_if.c	2012-10-25 09:11:15.627272524 -0700
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_if.c	2012-12-14 08:58:14.329847361 -0800
> @@ -66,14 +66,14 @@ void br_port_carrier_check(struct net_br
>  	struct net_device *dev = p->dev;
>  	struct net_bridge *br = p->br;
>  
> -	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_carrier_ok(dev))
> +	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_oper_up(dev))
>  		p->path_cost = port_cost(dev);
>  
>  	if (!netif_running(br->dev))
>  		return;
>  
>  	spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
> -	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_carrier_ok(dev)) {
> +	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_oper_up(dev))
>  		if (p->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED)
>  			br_stp_enable_port(p);

I found this piece still using netif_carrier_ok():
321 int br_add_if(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_device *dev)
322 {
...
385 
386         if ((dev->flags & IFF_UP) && netif_carrier_ok(dev) &&
387             (br->dev->flags & IFF_UP))
388                 br_stp_enable_port(p);
389         spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock);
390 

Is there any reason for enabling stp on a port using operstate
in br_port_carrier_check() but not in br_add_if() ?

The same thing happens with br_stp_enable_bridge():

 56   list_for_each_entry(p, &br->port_list, list) {
 57          if ((p->dev->flags & IFF_UP) && netif_carrier_ok(p->dev))
 58                  br_stp_enable_port(p);

Also, as operstate UP means that packets are flowing, there is no need to
check if the device is opened, so checking only for operstate should be
enough, right? I.e.

-           if ((p->dev->flags & IFF_UP) && netif_carrier_ok(p->dev))
+           if (netif_oper_up(dev))


>  	} else {
> --- a/net/bridge/br_notify.c	2012-10-25 09:11:15.631272484 -0700
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_notify.c	2012-12-14 08:57:36.954222724 -0800
> @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ static int br_device_event(struct notifi
>  		break;
>  
>  	case NETDEV_UP:
> -		if (netif_carrier_ok(dev) && (br->dev->flags & IFF_UP)) {
> +		if (netif_running(br->dev) && netif_oper_up(dev)) {
>  			spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
>  			br_stp_enable_port(p);
>  			spin_unlock_bh(&br->lock);

You are not just changing to use operstate, but also to check another
flag - before it was IFF_UP and now __LINK_STATE_START. Any reason
for that besides being consistent with other checks?

thanks!

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@vyatta.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:28:54 -0800

>  	spin_lock_bh(&br->lock);
> -	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_carrier_ok(dev)) {
> +	if (netif_running(dev) && netif_oper_up(dev))
>  		if (p->state == BR_STATE_DISABLED)
>  			br_stp_enable_port(p);
>  	} else {

You didn't even try to compile this.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html