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:	Sun, 18 Jan 2015 01:10:12 -0800
From:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
CC:	"stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	"Arad, Ronen" <ronen.arad@...el.com>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	john fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	"vyasevic@...hat.com" <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Wilson Kok <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] bridge: ability to disable forwarding on
 a port

On 1/17/15, 5:05 PM, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:32 PM,  <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>
>> On a Linux bridge with bridge forwarding offloaded to a switch ASIC,
>> there is a need to not re-forward the frames that come up to the
>> kernel in software.
>>
>> Typically these are broadcast or multicast packets forwarded by the
>> hardware to multiple destination ports including sending a copy of
>> the packet to the kernel (e.g. an arp broadcast).
>> The bridge driver will try to forward the packet again, resulting in
>> two copies of the same packet.
>>
>> These packets can also come up to the kernel for logging when they hit
>> a LOG acl in hardware.
>>
>> This patch makes forwarding a flag on the port similar to
>> learn and flood and drops the packet just before forwarding.
>> (The forwarding disable on a bridge is tested to work on our boxes.
>> The bridge port flag addition is only compile tested.
>> This will need to be further refined to cover cases where a non-switch port
>> is bridged to a switch port etc. We will submit more patches to cover
>> all cases if we agree on this approach).
> Good topic to bring up, thanks for proposing a patch.  There is indeed
> duplicate pkts sent out in the case where both the bridge and the
> offloaded device are flooding these non-unicast pkts, such as ARP
> requests.  We do have per-port control today over unicast flooding
> using BR_FLOOD (IFLA_BRPORT_UNICAST_FLOOD).
>
> As you point out, this doesn't solve the case for non-offloaded ports
> bridged with switch ports.  If this port setting is enabled on an
> offloaded switch port, for example, the non-offloaded port can't get
> an ARP request resolved, if the MAC is behind the offloaded switch
> port.  But do we care?  Is there a use-case for this one, mixing
> offloaded and non-offloaded ports in a bridge?

Not sure. I don't know the use case, but I think I might have heard that 
there could be a case
  where a switch port could be bridged with a vm's port running on the 
switch. (?)
>
>> Other ways to solve the same problem could be to:
>> - use the offload feature flag on these switch ports to avoid the
>> re-forward:
>> https://www.marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=141820235010603&w=2
>>
>> - Or the switch driver can mark or set a flag in the skb, which the bridge
>> driver can use to avoid a re-forward.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wilson Kok <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/if_bridge.h    |    3 ++-
>>   include/uapi/linux/if_link.h |    1 +
>>   net/bridge/br_forward.c      |   13 +++++++++++++
>>   net/bridge/br_if.c           |    2 +-
>>   net/bridge/br_netlink.c      |    4 +++-
>>   net/bridge/br_sysfs_if.c     |    1 +
>>   net/core/rtnetlink.c         |    4 +++-
>>   7 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/if_bridge.h b/include/linux/if_bridge.h
>> index 0a8ce76..c79f4eb 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/if_bridge.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/if_bridge.h
>> @@ -40,10 +40,11 @@ struct br_ip_list {
>>   #define BR_ADMIN_COST          BIT(4)
>>   #define BR_LEARNING            BIT(5)
>>   #define BR_FLOOD               BIT(6)
>> -#define BR_AUTO_MASK           (BR_FLOOD | BR_LEARNING)
>>   #define BR_PROMISC             BIT(7)
>>   #define BR_PROXYARP            BIT(8)
>>   #define BR_LEARNING_SYNC       BIT(9)
>> +#define BR_FORWARD             BIT(10)
> The name BR_FORWARD might confuse people thinking this is related to
> STP FORWARDING state.
yes, that thought crossed my mind too. I had BR_FORWARDING initially and 
to make it sound less like
STP changed it to BR_FORWARD. :)

> We have BR_FLOOD for unknown unicast flooding.
> How about renaming BR_FLOOD to BR_FLOOD_UNICAST and add
> BR_FLOOD_BROADCAST?  So you would have:
>
>    IFLA_BRPORT_UNICAST_FLOOD           BR_FLOOD_UNICAST        /* flood
> unknown unicast traffic to port */
>    IFLA_BRPORT_BROADCAST_FLOOD    BR_FLOOD_BROADCAST  /* flood
> bcast/mcast traffic to port */

That's a good idea. So, unknown unicast and broadcast will be covered 
with that.
Am afraid there might be other packets, like the acl LOG packet hitting 
the CPU/kernel (?)
I will check if there are others.
>
>> +#define BR_AUTO_MASK           (BR_FLOOD | BR_LEARNING | BR_FORWARD)
>>
>>   extern void brioctl_set(int (*ioctl_hook)(struct net *, unsigned int, void __user *));
>>
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
>> index f7d0d2d..d394625 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_link.h
>> @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ enum {
>>          IFLA_BRPORT_UNICAST_FLOOD, /* flood unicast traffic */
>>          IFLA_BRPORT_PROXYARP,   /* proxy ARP */
>>          IFLA_BRPORT_LEARNING_SYNC, /* mac learning sync from device */
>> +       IFLA_BRPORT_FORWARD,    /* enable forwarding on a device */
>>          __IFLA_BRPORT_MAX
>>   };
>>   #define IFLA_BRPORT_MAX (__IFLA_BRPORT_MAX - 1)
>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_forward.c b/net/bridge/br_forward.c
>> index f96933a..98c41c8 100644
>> --- a/net/bridge/br_forward.c
>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_forward.c
>> @@ -81,10 +81,23 @@ static void __br_deliver(const struct net_bridge_port *to, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>                  br_forward_finish);
>>   }
>>
>> +int br_hw_forward_finish(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> +{
>> +       kfree_skb(skb);
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static void __br_forward(const struct net_bridge_port *to, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>   {
>>          struct net_device *indev;
>>
>> +       if (!(to->flags & BR_FORWARD)) {
>> +               NF_HOOK(NFPROTO_BRIDGE, NF_BR_FORWARD, skb, skb->dev, to->dev,
>> +                       br_hw_forward_finish);
>> +               return;
>> +       }
>> +
> Seems you should make the (flags & BR_FORWARD) check earlier, before
> skb cloning, in br_flood(), alongside the (flags & BR_FLOOD) check.
This patch strategically places it in __br_forward to catch all forwards 
(due to floods or no floods ..with direct call to br_foward)
with minimal code changes in mind. Will see if the clone can be avoided.
>
> Also, the above code is skipping some vlan checks (br_handle_vlan).
The br_handle_vlan checks seemed not necessary for a packet getting dropped.
But, will check and fix if its needed while the packet traverses the 
netfilter hook and before it gets dropped.

Thanks,
Roopa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ