Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] bridge: modify IFLA_AF_SPEC parser to parse IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_RANGE_INFO

From: roopa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 15:19:57 -0800

On 12/29/14, 2:04 PM, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:05 PM,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> From: Roopa Prabhu <[email-masked]>
>>
>> This patch modifies br_afspec to parse incoming IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_RANGE_INFO
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wilson kok <[email-masked]>
>> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>>   net/bridge/br_netlink.c |   70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>   1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> index e7d1fc0..4c47ba0 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_netlink.c
>> @@ -227,48 +227,76 @@ static const struct nla_policy ifla_br_policy[IFLA_MAX+1] = {
>>                           .len = sizeof(struct bridge_vlan_range_info), },
>>   };
>>
>> +static int br_afspec_vlan_add(struct net_bridge *br,
>> +                             struct net_bridge_port *p,
>> +                             u16 vid, u16 flags)
>> +{
>> +       int err = 0;
>> +
>> +       if (p) {
>> +               err = nbp_vlan_add(p, vid, flags);
>> +               if (err)
>> +                       return err;
>> +
>> +               if (flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_MASTER)
>> +                       err = br_vlan_add(p->br, vid, flags);
>> +       } else {
>> +               err = br_vlan_add(br, vid, flags);
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return err;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void br_afspec_vlan_del(struct net_bridge *br,
>> +                              struct net_bridge_port *p,
>> +                              u16 vid, u16 flags)
>> +{
>> +       if (p) {
>> +               nbp_vlan_delete(p, vid);
>> +               if (flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_MASTER)
>> +                       br_vlan_delete(p->br, vid);
>> +       } else {
>> +               br_vlan_delete(br, vid);
>> +       }
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int br_afspec(struct net_bridge *br,
>>                       struct net_bridge_port *p,
>>                       struct nlattr *af_spec,
>>                       int cmd)
>>   {
>> -       struct bridge_vlan_info *vinfo;
>> -       int err = 0;
>> +       struct bridge_vlan_range_info *vinfo;
>>          struct nlattr *attr;
>>          int err = 0;
>>          int rem;
>>          u16 vid;
>>
>>          nla_for_each_nested(attr, af_spec, rem) {
>> -               if (nla_type(attr) != IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO)
>> +               if (nla_type(attr) != IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO &&
>> +                   nla_type(attr) != IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_RANGE_INFO)
>>                          continue;
>> -
>>                  vinfo = nla_data(attr);
> Check attr size.
>
>> -               if (!vinfo->vid || vinfo->vid >= VLAN_VID_MASK)
>> +
>> +               if (nla_type(attr) == IFLA_BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO)
>> +                       vinfo->vid_end = vinfo->vid;
> Maybe a switch(nla_type(attr)) would be better to explicitly handle
> each case?  Then the size check can be done for each case, as well as
> this fix-up for vid_end.

sure, i can do that.
>
>> +
>> +               if (!vinfo->vid || vinfo->vid >= VLAN_VID_MASK ||
>> +                   vinfo->vid_end >= VLAN_VID_MASK ||
>> +                   vinfo->vid > vinfo->vid_end)
>>                          return -EINVAL;
>>
>>                  switch (cmd) {
>>                  case RTM_SETLINK:
>> -                       if (p) {
>> -                               err = nbp_vlan_add(p, vinfo->vid, vinfo->flags);
>> +                       for (vid = vinfo->vid; vid <= vinfo->vid_end; vid++) {
>> +                               err = br_afspec_vlan_add(br, p, vid,
>> +                                                        vinfo->flags);
>>                                  if (err)
> Do you want to unwind on failure?  Seems it should be an
> all-or-nothing operation.

I could, but looking at other link operations, I don't seen anybody 
unwinding.  An AF_UNSPEC link netlink request can contain multiple link 
attributes and not all maybe applied AFAICS. But i don't have a strong 
opinion here.  I can unwind if needed.
>>                                          break;
>> -
>> -                               if (vinfo->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_MASTER)
>> -                                       err = br_vlan_add(p->br, vinfo->vid,
>> -                                                         vinfo->flags);
>> -                       } else
>> -                               err = br_vlan_add(br, vinfo->vid, vinfo->flags);
>> -
>> +                       }
>>                          break;
>> -
>>                  case RTM_DELLINK:
>> -                       if (p) {
>> -                               nbp_vlan_delete(p, vinfo->vid);
>> -                               if (vinfo->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_MASTER)
>> -                                       br_vlan_delete(p->br, vinfo->vid);
>> -                       } else
>> -                               br_vlan_delete(br, vinfo->vid);
>> +                       for (vid = vinfo->vid; vid <= vinfo->vid_end; vid++)
>> +                               br_afspec_vlan_del(br, p, vid, vinfo->flags);
>>                          break;
>>                  }
>>          }
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
>> the body of a message to [email-masked]
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html