linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: bridge: switchdev: don't notify FDB entries with "master dynamic"

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: <20230412162407.xk3okeiedylv6sqp@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 12 Apr 2023 19:24:07 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        "Hans J. Schultz" <netdev@...io-technology.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Arkadi Sharshevsky <arkadis@...lanox.com>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: bridge: switchdev: don't notify FDB entries
 with "master dynamic"

On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 07:00:02PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 05:27:33PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > How are extern_learn FDB entries processed by spectrum's
> > SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_DEVICE handler?
> 
> No different than "BR_FDB_STATIC", which is a bug I'm aware of and
> intend to fix in net-next when I get the time (together with all the
> other combinations enabled by the bridge). Entry has ageing disabled,
> but can roam in which case it becomes age-able.
> 
> TBH, I think most devices don't handle "BR_FDB_STATIC" correctly. In the
> Linux bridge, "BR_FDB_STATIC" only means ageing disabled. The entry can
> still roam, but remains "static". I believe that in most devices out
> there "static" means no roaming and no ageing which is equivalent to
> "BR_FDB_STATIC | BR_FDB_STICKY". Mentioned in your commit message as
> well: "As for the hardware FDB entry, that's static, it doesn't move
> when the station roams."
> 
> As it stands, the situation is far from perfect, but the patch doesn't
> solve a regression (always broken) and will introduce one. My suggestion
> allows you to move forward and solve the "dynamic" case, so let's
> proceed with that unless there's a better alternative.

I'm not trying to accuse anybody, I just wanted to make sure I'm not
missing something (and surprise, I was).

The comment regarding BR_FDB_STATIC vs BR_FDB_STATIC | BR_FDB_STICKY
is interesting. This whole "hey, did you know you were never using the
bridge fdb flags correctly?" is starting to become a bit of a meme.

I'll send v2 with BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN not prevented from being
notified from switchdev.

Unless you have any objection, I won't send v2 like this:

	if (test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER, &fdb->flags) &&
	    !test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &fdb->flags) &&
	    !test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &fdb->flags))
		return;

but like this:

	/* Entries with just the BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER flag set were created
	 * using 'bridge fdb add ... master dynamic'
	 */
	if (fdb->flags == BIT(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_USER))
		return;

Thanks for the review and for pointing out the regression early.