linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.7 03/60] net: mscc: ocelot: fix encoding destination ports into multicast IPv4 address

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200811164255.GJ2975990@sasha-vm>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:42:55 -0400
From:   Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 5.7 03/60] net: mscc: ocelot: fix encoding
 destination ports into multicast IPv4 address

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:01:08AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>Hi Sasha,
>
>On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 03:09:31PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
>>
>> [ Upstream commit 0897ecf7532577bda3dbcb043ce046a96948889d ]
>>
>> The ocelot hardware designers have made some hacks to support multicast
>> IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. Normally, the MAC table matches on MAC
>> addresses and the destination ports are selected through the DEST_IDX
>> field of the respective MAC table entry. The DEST_IDX points to a Port
>> Group ID (PGID) which contains the bit mask of ports that frames should
>> be forwarded to. But there aren't a lot of PGIDs (only 80 or so) and
>> there are clearly many more IP multicast addresses than that, so it
>> doesn't scale to use this PGID mechanism, so something else was done.
>> Since the first portion of the MAC address is known, the hack they did
>> was to use a single PGID for _flooding_ unknown IPv4 multicast
>> (PGID_MCIPV4 == 62), but for known IP multicast, embed the destination
>> ports into the first 3 bytes of the MAC address recorded in the MAC
>> table.
>>
>> The VSC7514 datasheet explains it like this:
>>
>>     3.9.1.5 IPv4 Multicast Entries
>>
>>     MAC table entries with the ENTRY_TYPE = 2 settings are interpreted
>>     as IPv4 multicast entries.
>>     IPv4 multicasts entries match IPv4 frames, which are classified to
>>     the specified VID, and which have DMAC = 0x01005Exxxxxx, where
>>     xxxxxx is the lower 24 bits of the MAC address in the entry.
>>     Instead of a lookup in the destination mask table (PGID), the
>>     destination set is programmed as part of the entry MAC address. This
>>     is shown in the following table.
>>
>>     Table 78: IPv4 Multicast Destination Mask
>>
>>         Destination Ports            Record Bit Field
>>         ---------------------------------------------
>>         Ports 10-0                   MAC[34-24]
>>
>>     Example: All IPv4 multicast frames in VLAN 12 with MAC 01005E112233 are
>>     to be forwarded to ports 3, 8, and 9. This is done by inserting the
>>     following entry in the MAC table entry:
>>     VALID = 1
>>     VID = 12
>>     MAC = 0x000308112233
>>     ENTRY_TYPE = 2
>>     DEST_IDX = 0
>>
>> But this procedure is not at all what's going on in the driver. In fact,
>> the code that embeds the ports into the MAC address looks like it hasn't
>> actually been tested. This patch applies the procedure described in the
>> datasheet.
>>
>> Since there are many other fixes to be made around multicast forwarding
>> until it works properly, there is no real reason for this patch to be
>> backported to stable trees, or considered a real fix of something that
>> should have worked.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
>> ---
>
>Could you please drop this patch from the 'stable' queues for 5.7 and
>5.8? I haven't tested it on older kernels and without the other patches
>sent in that series. I would like to avoid unexpected regressions if
>possible.

Will do, thanks!

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha