netdev - Re: Problem with bridge (mcast-to-ucast + hairpin) and Broadcom's 802.11f in their FullMAC fw

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: <CACna6rwbEAshSi4hFHFu5dAinwbXKrwoSkB0NWmQki7-VkX0Rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:49:04 +0100
From:   Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>
To:     Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>,
        Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
        Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>,
        Hante Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,
        Chi-Hsien Lin <chi-hsien.lin@...ress.com>,
        Wright Feng <wright.feng@...ress.com>,
        Pieter-Paul Giesberts <pieter-paul.giesberts@...adcom.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER" 
        <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>,
        "open list:BROADCOM BRCM80211 IEEE802.11n WIRELESS DRIVER
        <brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com>," 
        <brcm80211-dev-list@...ress.com>
Subject: Re: Problem with bridge (mcast-to-ucast + hairpin) and Broadcom's
 802.11f in their FullMAC fw

On 28 February 2018 at 12:31, Arend van Spriel
<arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com> wrote:
> On 2/27/2018 11:14 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>
>> Sending with a fixed linux-wireless ML address. Please kindly send your
>> replies using linux-wireless@
>>
>> On 02/27/2018 11:08 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>
>>> I've problem when using OpenWrt/LEDE on a home router with Broadcom's
>>> FullMAC WiFi chipset.
>>>
>>>
>>> First of all OpenWrt/LEDE uses bridge interface for LAN network with:
>>> 1) IFLA_BRPORT_MCAST_TO_UCAST
>>> 2) Clients isolation in hostapd
>>> 3) Hairpin mode enabled
>>>
>>> For more details please see Linus's patch description:
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9530669/
>>> and maybe hairpin mode patch:
>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/347344/
>>>
>>> Short version: in that setup packets received from a bridged wireless
>>> interface can be handled back to it for transmission.
>>>
>>>
>>> Now, Broadcom's firmware for their FullMAC chipsets in AP mode
>>> supports an obsoleted 802.11f AKA IAPP standard. It's a roaming
>>> standard that was replaced by 802.11r.
>>>
>>> Whenever a new station associates, firmware generates a packet like:
>>> ff ff ff ff  ff ff ec 10  7b 5f ?? ??  00 06 00 01  af 81 01 00
>>> (just masked 2 bytes of my MAC)
>>>
>>> For mode details you can see discussion in my brcmfmac patch thread:
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10191451/
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that bridge (in setup as above) handles such a packet
>>> back to the device.
>
>
> From reading the referenced links I understand the hairpin mode is causing
> the packet to be sent back to the device, and the hairpin mode is required
> for MCAST_TO_UCAST, right?
>
>>> That makes Broadcom's FullMAC firmware believe that a given station
>>> just connected to another AP in a network (which doesn't even exist).
>>> As a result firmware immediately disassociates that station. It's
>>> simply impossible to connect to the router. Every association is
>>> followed by immediate disassociation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you see any solution for this problem? Is that an option to stop
>>> multicast-to-unicast from touching 802.11f packets? Some other ideas?
>>> Obviously I can't modify Broadcom's firmware and drop that obsoleted
>>> standard.
>
>
> As far as I can tell you are correct that the 802.11f amendment was never
> adopted into the 802.11 standard. I will ask internally if we still have a
> reason for carrying it in our firmware.

Thanks! Having at least a way to disable it would be nice.

That said I think we still should look for a solution for existing
firmwares. I guess it may takes months to years to never to release
new firmwares for all supported chipsets.

-- 
Rafał