linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: dsa: microchip: implement multi-bridge support

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]

Date:   Tue, 16 Nov 2021 14:16:57 +0100
From:   Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     g@...gutronix.de, Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        kernel@...gutronix.de, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: dsa: microchip: implement multi-bridge
 support

On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 02:47:23PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 09:39:03AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 01:45:46AM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > 
> > .....
 
> > Probably I need to signal it some how from dsa driver, to let linux
> > bridge make proper decision and reduce logging noise.
> 
> What logging noise?

I get this with current ksz driver:
[   40.185928] br0: port 2(lan2) entered blocking state
[   40.190924] br0: port 2(lan2) entered listening state
[   41.043186] br0: port 2(lan2) entered blocking state
[   55.512832] br0: port 1(lan1) entered learning state
[   61.272802] br0: port 2(lan2) neighbor 8000.ae:1b:91:58:77:8b lost
[   61.279192] br0: port 2(lan2) entered listening state
[   63.113236] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[   63.123314] br0: port 2(lan2) entered blocking state
[   68.953098] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[   70.872840] br0: port 1(lan1) entered forwarding state
[   70.878183] br0: topology change detected, propagating
[   70.883820] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[   83.672804] br0: port 2(lan2) neighbor 8000.ae:1b:91:58:77:8b lost
[   83.679181] br0: port 2(lan2) entered listening state
[   85.113244] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[   85.123313] br0: port 2(lan2) entered blocking state
[   97.753160] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[  103.513076] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[  105.432801] br0: port 2(lan2) neighbor 8000.ae:1b:91:58:77:8b lost
[  105.439221] br0: port 2(lan2) entered listening state
[  107.113238] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[  107.123326] br0: port 2(lan2) entered blocking state
[  127.192807] br0: port 2(lan2) neighbor 8000.ae:1b:91:58:77:8b lost
[  127.199220] br0: port 2(lan2) entered listening state
[  129.113249] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[  129.123378] br0: port 2(lan2) entered blocking state
[  149.592804] br0: port 2(lan2) neighbor 8000.ae:1b:91:58:77:8b lost
[  149.600308] br0: port 2(lan2) entered listening state
[  151.113276] br0: received packet on lan1 with own address as source address (addr:00:0e:cd:00:cd:be, vlan:0)
[  151.125213] br0: port 2(lan2) entered blocking state

Probably I have wrong expectation... 

> > And since STP state is not directly configurable on this switch, it
> > probably means receive/transmit enable state of the port.  So, packets
> > with matching MAC should be forwarded even if port is in the receive
> > disabled state. Correct?
> 
> In the context we've been discussing so far, "forwarding" has a pretty
> specific meaning, which is autonomously redirecting from one front port
> to another. For link-local packets, what you want is "trapping", i.e.
> send to the CPU and to the CPU only.

Ok. Thank you!

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |