linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers

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: <a49aa436546d9e59116765ef424ab894@kapio-technology.com>
Date:   Tue, 02 Aug 2022 14:54:50 +0200
From:   netdev@...io-technology.com
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry
 flag to drivers

On 2022-07-21 13:59, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 05:53:22PM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com 
> wrote:
>> > 3. What happens to packets with a DA matching the zero-DPV entry, are
>> > they also discarded in hardware? If so, here we differ from the bridge
>> > driver implementation where such packets will be forwarded according to
>> > the locked entry and egress the locked port
>> 
>> I understand that egress will follow what is setup with regard to UC, 
>> MC and
>> BC, though I haven't tested that. But no replies will get through of 
>> course
>> as long as the port hasn't been opened for the iface behind the locked 
>> port.
> 
> Here, should we be rather fixing the software bridge, if the current
> behavior is to forward packets towards locked FDB entries?

Yes, I think that locked entries should block egress to the respective 
hosts behind the locked port, which should be fixed in the bridge.