netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2] switchdev: bridge: drop hardware forwarded packets

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: <550C6729.5060706@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:30:01 -0700
From:	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
CC:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jiří Pírko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	"Arad, Ronen" <ronen.arad@...el.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2] switchdev: bridge: drop hardware forwarded
 packets

On 03/20/2015 11:13 AM, Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:11 AM, John Fastabend
> <john.r.fastabend@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 03/20/2015 09:58 AM, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com wrote:
>>> From: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>>
>>> On a Linux bridge with bridge forwarding offloaded to switch ASIC,
>>> there is a need to not re-forward frames that have already been
>>> forwarded in hardware.
>>>
>>> Typically these are broadcast or multicast frames forwarded by the
>>> hardware to multiple destination ports including sending a copy of
>>> the packet to the cpu (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 rule in hardware. In such cases, you do want the packet
>>> to go through the bridge netfilter hooks. Hence, this patch adds the
>>> required checks just before the packet is being xmited.
>>>
>>> v2:
>>>        - Add a new hw_fwded flag in skbuff to indicate that the packet
>>>        is already hardware forwarded. Switch driver will set this flag.
>>>        I have been trying to avoid having this flag in the skb
>>>        and thats why this patch has been in my tree for long. Cant think
>>>        of other better alternatives. Suggestions are welcome. I have put
>>>        this under CONFIG_NET_SWITCHDEV to minimize the impact.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wilson Kok <wkok@...ulusnetworks.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Interesting. I completely avoid this problem by not instantiating a
>> software bridge ;) When these pkts come up the stack I either use a
>> raw socket to capture them, put a 'tc' ingress rule to do something,
>> or have OVS handle them in some special way. It seems to me that this
>> is where the sw/hw model starts to break when you have these magic
>> bits to handle the packets differently.
>>
>> How do you know to set the skb bit? Do you have some indicator in the
>> descriptor? I don't have any good way to learn this on my hardware. But
>> I can assume if it reached the CPU it was because of some explicit rule.
>
> I was wondering that also, since there was no example.
>
> This features seems like it belongs in the bridge.  We already have
> BR_FLOOD to indicate whether unknown unicast traffic is flooded to a
> bridge port.  Can we add another BR_FLOOD_BCAST (or some name) for
> this new feature?  You would set/clear this flag on the bridge
> (master) port.  The default is set.  And now:
>
> - #define BR_AUTO_MASK          (BR_FLOOD | BR_LEARNING)
> + #define BR_AUTO_MASK          (BR_FLOOD | BR_FLOOD_BCAST | BR_LEARNING)
>
> Does this work for your use-case, Roopa?

I'm probably being a bit dense but I can't think of a case where I would
want pkts forwarded back to the hardware. If you could explain a bit
more why this would be useful that would help me at least. Maybe a flag
to disable forwarding on the port would work. Perhaps using the
BR_STATE_* bits would be good enough?

.John

>
> -scott
> --
> 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
>


-- 
John Fastabend         Intel Corporation
--
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