linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 09/16] net: dsa: replay port and local fdb entries when joining the bridge

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: <20210322161955.c3slrmbtofswrqiz@skbuf>
Date:   Mon, 22 Mar 2021 18:19:55 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Vadym Kochan <vkochan@...vell.com>,
        Taras Chornyi <tchornyi@...vell.com>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@....com>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 net-next 09/16] net: dsa: replay port and local
 fdb entries when joining the bridge

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 04:44:41PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> I do not know if it is a problem or not, more of an observation: This is
> not guaranteed to be an exact replay of the events that the bridge port
> (i.e. bond0 or whatever) has received since, in fdb_insert, we exit
> early when adding local entries if that address is already in the
> database.
> 
> Do we have to guard against this somehow? Or maybe we should consider
> the current behavior a bug and make sure to always send the event in the
> first place?

I don't really understand what you're saying.
fdb_insert has:

	fdb = br_fdb_find(br, addr, vid);
	if (fdb) {
		/* it is okay to have multiple ports with same
		 * address, just use the first one.
		 */
		if (test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb->flags))
			return 0;
		br_warn(br, "adding interface %s with same address as a received packet (addr:%pM, vlan:%u)\n",
		       source ? source->dev->name : br->dev->name, addr, vid);
		fdb_delete(br, fdb, true);
	}

	fdb = fdb_create(br, source, addr, vid,
			 BIT(BR_FDB_LOCAL) | BIT(BR_FDB_STATIC));

Basically, if the {addr, vid} pair already exists in the fdb, and it
points to a local entry, fdb_create is bypassed.

Whereas my br_fdb_replay() function iterates over br->fdb_list, which is
exactly where fdb_create() also lays its eggs. That is to say, unless
I'm missing something, that duplicate local FDB entries that skipped the
fdb_create() call in fdb_insert() because they were for already-existing
local FDB entries will also be skipped by br_fdb_replay(), because it
iterates over a br->fdb_list which contains unique local addresses.
Where am I wrong?