On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 03:07:01AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> The bridge VLAN implementation w.r.t. VLAN protocol is described in
> merge commit 1a0b20b25732 ("Merge branch 'bridge-next'"). We are only
> sensitive to those VLAN tags whose TPID is equal to the bridge's
> vlan_protocol. Thus, an 802.1ad VLAN should be treated as 802.1Q-untagged.
> 
> Add 3 tests which validate that:
> - 802.1ad-tagged traffic is learned into the PVID of an 802.1Q-aware
>   bridge
> - Double-tagged traffic is forwarded when just the PVID of the port is
>   present in the VLAN group of the ports
> - Double-tagged traffic is not forwarded when the PVID of the port is
>   absent from the VLAN group of the ports
> 
> The test passes with both veth and ocelot.

Thanks for the test. Passes with mlxsw as well.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]>

One question below

> ---
>  .../net/forwarding/bridge_vlan_aware.sh       | 54 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_vlan_aware.sh 
> b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_vlan_aware.sh
> index 64bd00fe9a4f..90f8a244ea90 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_vlan_aware.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/forwarding/bridge_vlan_aware.sh
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
>  #!/bin/bash
>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>  
> -ALL_TESTS="ping_ipv4 ping_ipv6 learning flooding vlan_deletion extern_learn"
> +ALL_TESTS="ping_ipv4 ping_ipv6 learning flooding vlan_deletion extern_learn 
> other_tpid"
>  NUM_NETIFS=4
>  CHECK_TC="yes"
>  source lib.sh
> @@ -142,6 +142,58 @@ extern_learn()
>       bridge fdb del de:ad:be:ef:13:37 dev $swp1 master vlan 1 &> /dev/null
>  }
>  
> +other_tpid()
> +{
> +     local mac=de:ad:be:ef:13:37
> +
> +     # Test that packets with TPID 802.1ad VID 3 + TPID 802.1Q VID 5 are
> +     # classified as untagged by a bridge with vlan_protocol 802.1Q, and
> +     # are processed in the PVID of the ingress port (here 1). Not VID 3,
> +     # and not VID 5.
> +     RET=0
> +
> +     tc qdisc add dev $h2 clsact
> +     tc filter add dev $h2 ingress protocol all pref 1 handle 101 \
> +             flower dst_mac $mac action drop
> +     ip link set $h2 promisc on
> +     ethtool -K $h2 rx-vlan-filter off rx-vlan-stag-filter off

Any reason not to undo it at the end of the test like other settings?

> +
> +     $MZ -q $h1 -c 1 -b $mac -a own "88:a8 00:03 81:00 00:05 08:00 
> aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa"
> +     sleep 1
> +
> +     # Match on 'self' addresses as well, for those drivers which
> +     # do not push their learned addresses to the bridge software
> +     # database
> +     bridge -j fdb show $swp1 | \
> +             jq -e ".[] | select(.mac == \"$(mac_get $h1)\") | select(.vlan 
> == 1)" &> /dev/null
> +     check_err $? "FDB entry was not learned when it should"
> +
> +     log_test "FDB entry in PVID for VLAN-tagged with other TPID"
> +
> +     RET=0
> +     tc -j -s filter show dev $h2 ingress \
> +             | jq -e ".[] | select(.options.handle == 101) \
> +             | select(.options.actions[0].stats.packets == 1)" &> /dev/null
> +     check_err $? "Packet was not forwarded when it should"
> +     log_test "Reception of VLAN with other TPID as untagged"
> +
> +     bridge vlan del dev $swp1 vid 1
> +
> +     $MZ -q $h1 -c 1 -b $mac -a own "88:a8 00:03 81:00 00:05 08:00 
> aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa-aa"
> +     sleep 1
> +
> +     RET=0
> +     tc -j -s filter show dev $h2 ingress \
> +             | jq -e ".[] | select(.options.handle == 101) \
> +             | select(.options.actions[0].stats.packets == 1)" &> /dev/null
> +     check_err $? "Packet was forwarded when should not"
> +     log_test "Reception of VLAN with other TPID as untagged (no PVID)"
> +
> +     bridge vlan add dev $swp1 vid 1 pvid untagged
> +     ip link set $h2 promisc off
> +     tc qdisc del dev $h2 clsact
> +}
> +
>  trap cleanup EXIT
>  
>  setup_prepare
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

Reply via email to