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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150323002215.GA6074@roeck-us.net>
Date:	Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:22:15 -0700
From:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:	Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, sfeldma@...il.com,
	jiri@...nulli.us, ronen.arad@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v2] switchdev: bridge: drop hardware
 forwarded packets

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:09:46PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > since we have discussed this problem multiple times in switchdev meetings,
> > the intent of this RFC is to see get the code out and also see if
> > rocker or any other in-kernel
> > driver can use it.
> 
> The Marvell switches in DSA don't have any way to mark packets why
> they where forwarded towards the host. So i don't see how we could use
> this feature with these chips.
> 

If we (re-)enable unknown address flooding in the Marvell switch chips,
we could simply mark all packets received from the switch as "forwarded
by hardware". Sure, there is no bit in the header, but we would know
from the chip configuration that the packets were forwarded.

There may be a different problem, though: The driver won't know if
the packet still needs to be forwarded by the soft bridge, for
example to a port of a switch on another network interface
which is part of the same bridge group.

		+---+
		|br0|
		+---+
		 | |
	+--------+ +----+
	|		|
      +---+	      +---+
      |sw0|	      |sw1|
      +---+	      +---+
       | +---+	        |
     +--+  +--+       +--+
     |p0|  |p1|	      |p2|
     +--+  +--+	      +--+

In this scenarion, sw0 can only know that it forwarded a packet to ports
on the same switch. It does not know know that the packet needs to be
forwarded to p2 as well. It would forward the packet from p0 to p1, and
thus presumably set the hw_fwded bit, but br0 still needs to forward it.

Maybe the check should be "if the packet was HW forwarded, the destination
is a switch, and the destination is the same switch, don't forward the packet".
This would be expensive, but on the other side it should not affect too
many packets.

Guenter
--
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