netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] net: dsa: add support for MC

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]

Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:27:29 +0300
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
Cc:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] net: dsa: add support for MC_DISABLED attribute

On 30/06/2019 19:56, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 07:29:45PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> I would like to avoid having drivers take the querier state into account
>> as it will only complicate things further.
> 
> I absolutely share your pain. Initially in the early prototypes of
> multicast awareness in batman-adv we did not consider the querier state.
> And doing so later did indeed complicate the code a good bit in batman-adv
> (together with the IGMP/MLD suppression issues). I would have loved to
> avoid that.
> 
> 
>> Is there anything we can do about it? Enable the bridge querier if no
>> other querier was detected? Commit c5c23260594c ("bridge: Add
>> multicast_querier toggle and disable queries by default") disabled
>> queries by default, but I'm only suggesting to turn them on if no other
>> querier was detected on the link. Do you think it's still a problem?
> 
> As soon as you start becoming the querier, you will not be able to reliably
> detect anymore whether you are the only querier candidate.
> 
> If any random Linux host using a bridge device were potentially becoming
> a querier, that would cause quite some trouble when this host is
> behind some bad, bottleneck connection. This host will receive
> all multicast traffic, not just IGMP/MLD reports. And with a
> congested connection and then unreliable IGMP/MLD, multicast would
> become unreliable overall in this domain. So it's important that
> your querier is not running in the "dark, remote, dusty closet" of
> your network (topologically speaking).
> 

+1
We definitely don't want random hosts becoming queriers

>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:44:27AM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>>> See commit b00589af3b04 ("bridge: disable snooping if there is no
>>> querier"). I think that's unfortunate behavior that we need because
>>> multicast snooping is enabled by default. If it weren't enabled by
>>> default, then anyone enabling it would also make sure there's a querier
>>> in the network.
> 
> I do not quite understand that point. In a way, that's what we
> have right now, isn't it? By default it's disabled, because by
> default there is no querier on the link. So anyone wanting to use
> multicast snooping will need to make sure there's a querier in the
> network.
> 

Indeed, also you could create the bridge with explicit mcast parameters if you need
different behaviour on start. Unfortunately I think you'll have to handle
the querier state.

> 
> Overall I think the querier (election) mechanism in the standards could
> need an update. While the lowest-address first might have
> worked well back then, in uniform, fully wired networks where the
> position of the querier did not matter, this is not a good
> solution anymore in networks involving wireless, dynamic connections.
> Especially in wireless mesh networks this is a bit of an issue for
> us. Ideally, the querier mechanism were dismissed in favour of simply
> unsolicited, periodic IGMP/MLD reports...
> 
> But of course, updating IETF standards is no solution for now. 
> 
> While more complicated, it would not be impossible to consider the
> querier state, would it? I mean you probably already need to
> consider the case of a user disabling multicast snooping during
> runtime, right? So similarly, you could react to appearing or
> disappearing queriers?
> 
> Cheers, Linus
> 

Thanks,
 Nik