| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 22:32:31 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Vladislav Zolotarov <vladz@...adcom.com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Receiving of priority tagged packets
Le dimanche 23 mai 2010 à 03:51 -0700, Vladislav Zolotarov a écrit :
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org] On
> > Behalf Of Vladislav Zolotarov
> > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 1:23 PM
> > To: Eric Dumazet
> > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: Receiving of priority tagged packets
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2010 1:07 PM
> > > To: Vladislav Zolotarov
> > > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: Receiving of priority tagged packets
> > >
> > > Le dimanche 23 mai 2010 à 02:36 -0700, Vladislav Zolotarov a écrit :
> > > > Hello,
> > > > We were playing with FCoE in our labs and saw the strange behavior of
> > Linux
> > > networking stack in regard to priority-tagged frames (the ones that have a
> > > zero VID in a VLAN tag). We saw that until we explicitly added a zero vlan
> > > interface (vconfig add ethX 0) the stack refused to accept such packets
> > both
> > > in HW VLAN acceleration mode (skb is indicated using
> > > vlan_hwaccel_receive_skb()) and in a regular mode (skb is indicated with
> > > netif_receive_skb()).
> > > >
> > > > However "IEEE Std 802.1Q, 2006 Edition DRAFT D0.1" in section 6.7 states
> > > the following:
> > > >
> > > > Each Bridge Port shall support the following parameters for use by these
> > > (EISS tagging and detagging) functions:
> > > > c) an Acceptable Frame Types parameter with at least one of the
> > > following values:
> > > > 1) Admit Only VLAN-tagged frames;
> > > > 2) Admit Only Untagged and Priority-tagged frames;
> > > > 3) Admit All frames
> > > >
> > > > So I guess this means that priority tagged frames should be accepted
> > > together with the untagged frames on the default interface ethX.
> > > >
> > > > Could anyone explain, pls., what's the expected behavior of the Linux
> > > Networking Stack in regard to the priority-tagged frames and what's
> > expected
> > > to be configured in order to start accepting them?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > vlad
> > >
> > > So if eth0.0 is setup, incoming vlanid=0 frames are delivered to eth0.0,
> > > OK ? (This works in and out since commit 05423b241311c93)
> > >
> > > Now, if eth0.0 is not setup, you believe these frames should be directed
> > > to eth0, as if they were not tagged ?
> > >
> > > That seems a bit strange.
> >
> > Well, as far as I understood this is what IEEE 802.1Q spec states...
>
> From the same spec:
>
> ***************
> 3.38 Priority-tagged frame: A tagged frame whose tag header carries priority information but carries no
> VLAN identification information.
> ***************
>
> Namely priority-tagged frames are frames that carry no VLAN identification information and namely should be treated as non-VLAN packets.
>
> However, as u mentioned above, current Networking Stack implementation handles them as if they have VID 0.
>
> These two are quite different ways to handle the frame, don’t u think?
Following patch should fix it ?
Fallback to ethX is ethX.0 is not used.
diff --git a/net/8021q/vlan_core.c b/net/8021q/vlan_core.c
index bd537fc..909f6e7 100644
--- a/net/8021q/vlan_core.c
+++ b/net/8021q/vlan_core.c
@@ -8,6 +8,9 @@
int __vlan_hwaccel_rx(struct sk_buff *skb, struct vlan_group *grp,
u16 vlan_tci, int polling)
{
+ struct net_device *vlan_dev;
+ u16 vlan_id;
+
if (netpoll_rx(skb))
return NET_RX_DROP;
@@ -16,10 +19,14 @@ int __vlan_hwaccel_rx(struct sk_buff *skb, struct vlan_group *grp,
skb->skb_iif = skb->dev->ifindex;
__vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(skb, vlan_tci);
- skb->dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK);
+ vlan_id = vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK;
+ vlan_dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_id);
- if (!skb->dev)
- goto drop;
+ if (vlan_dev)
+ skb->dev = vlan_dev;
+ else
+ if (vlan_id)
+ goto drop;
return (polling ? netif_receive_skb(skb) : netif_rx(skb));
@@ -82,16 +89,22 @@ vlan_gro_common(struct napi_struct *napi, struct vlan_group *grp,
unsigned int vlan_tci, struct sk_buff *skb)
{
struct sk_buff *p;
+ struct net_device *vlan_dev;
+ u16 vlan_id;
if (skb_bond_should_drop(skb, ACCESS_ONCE(skb->dev->master)))
goto drop;
skb->skb_iif = skb->dev->ifindex;
__vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(skb, vlan_tci);
- skb->dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK);
-
- if (!skb->dev)
- goto drop;
+ vlan_id = vlan_tci & VLAN_VID_MASK;
+ vlan_dev = vlan_group_get_device(grp, vlan_id);
+
+ if (vlan_dev)
+ skb->dev = vlan_dev;
+ else
+ if (vlan_id)
+ goto drop;
for (p = napi->gro_list; p; p = p->next) {
NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->same_flow =
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists