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: <CAE4R7bBd8TeNCiXdOL9en-FfuTqqn==UYvAxHHD8BYHuFCiWBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:37:01 -0700
From:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>
To:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.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 Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:06 PM, roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> On 3/20/15, 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.
>
> yes, it does, the check today is really 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?
>
> Note my first RFC patch, sort of did this:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=142147999420017&w=2
>
> But there are open things there as listed in the comment and also in the
> subsequent
> discussion on the thread.
>
> We discussed this flag before and i think it does not allow the case where
> hw switch ports are  bridged with non-hw ports.

I went back and read the thread just to remind me what the pros/cons
where.  I think the mixed case isn't a concern since this
BR_FLOOD_BCAST check is made on egress to the bridge port.  So only
clear BR_FLOOD_BCAST on hw switch ports (if hw did the flood already
amongst its ports), and leave it set for non-hw-ports.   It seems the
patch should mostly be a clone of how BR_FLOOD is handled.  Is there
more to it?
--
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