netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/5] IGMP snooping for local traffic

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: <20171107231700.GD7601@lunn.ch>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2017 00:17:00 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 0/5] IGMP snooping for local traffic

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:37:32PM -0500, Vivien Didelot wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:
> 
> >> In a switch case, they all translate to programming a MDB entry for
> >> a given switch port, right?
> >
> > No, in fact it is the exact opposite.
> 
> Yes, they do. The proof is you call dsa_port_mdb_add.

Note that i always say switchdev.

switchdev has no concept of the CPU port. All switchdev has is the
concept of the external ports.

So when there is a join on the br0 interface, the bridge code will
iterative over each port in the bridge, and make a switchdev call to
each of the external ports in the bridge asking it to forward
multicast traffic for a group to the host.

Now, deep down in DSA, we can translate this to a dsa_port_mdb_add, on
the CPU port. And we do that for every call the bridge makes for each
of the external ports in the bridge.

However, a pure switchdev device won't do that. It does not have a CPU
port. It probably needs to add a match/action rule to its tables for
the actual external port saying to forward the frame out the slow
path.

> Still, what I see here _from a switch driver point of view_ is either
> program an MDB entry on a user port, or on its CPU port.

I agree with this, if you make one change:

_from a DSA switch driver point of view_

However, in the general case, this is not true. We need an API which
works for Mellonex and Netranome as well, systems without a CPU port.

      Andrew