[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <443375f0-f29e-4153-56b0-f17513f19388@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:44:03 +0900
From: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Brandon Carpenter <brandon.carpenter@...herpath.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Sending 802.1Q packets using AF_PACKET socket on filtered bridge
forwards with wrong MAC addresses
Hi,
(CC: Vlad)
On 2017/11/30 7:01, Brandon Carpenter wrote:
> I narrowed the search to a memmove() called from
> skb_reorder_vlan_header() in net/core/skbuff.c.
>
>> memmove(skb->data - ETH_HLEN, skb->data - skb->mac_len - VLAN_HLEN,
>> 2 * ETH_ALEN);
>
> Calling skb_reset_mac_len() after skb_reset_mac_header() before
> calling br_allowed_ingress() in net/bridge/br_device.c fixes the
> problem.
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_device.c b/net/bridge/br_device.c
> index af5b8c87f590..e10131e2f68f 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_device.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_device.c
> @@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ netdev_tx_t br_dev_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
> net_device *dev)
> BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->brdev = dev;
>
> skb_reset_mac_header(skb);
> + skb_reset_mac_len(skb);
> eth = eth_hdr(skb);
> skb_pull(skb, ETH_HLEN);
Thanks for debugging this problem.
It seems this has been broken since a6e18ff11170 ("vlan: Fix untag
operations of stacked vlans with REORDER_HEADER off").
Unfortunately this does not always work correctly, since in tx path
drivers assume network header to be set to L3 protocol header offset.
Packet socket (packet_snd()) determines network header by
dev_hard_header which is ETH_HLEN in bridge devices, so this works for
packet socket, but with vlan devices on top of bridge device with
tx-vlan hwaccel disabled we get ETH_HLEN + VLAN_HLEN or longer by mac_len.
Since mac_len can be arbitrarily long if we stack vlan devices on bridge
devices, and since we want to untag the outermost tag, using mac_len to
untag in tx path is probably no longer correct.
I'll think deeper about how to fix it.
> I'll put together an official patch and submit it. Should I use
> another email account? Are my emails being ignored because of that
> stupid disclaimer my employer attaches to my messages (outside my
> control)?
>
> Brandon
>
--
Toshiaki Makita
Powered by blists - more mailing lists