netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/13] RX filtering for DSA switches

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: <f51e89a0-b481-e0e1-0e87-f803f116f684@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 May 2020 09:13:02 -0700
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, andrew@...n.ch,
        vivien.didelot@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net
Cc:     jiri@...nulli.us, idosch@...sch.org, kuba@...nel.org,
        ivecera@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com, allan.nielsen@...rochip.com,
        nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/13] RX filtering for DSA switches

Hi Vladimir,

On 5/21/2020 2:10 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> 
> This is a WIP series whose stated goal is to allow DSA and switchdev
> drivers to flood less traffic to the CPU while keeping the same level of
> functionality.
> 
> The strategy is to whitelist towards the CPU only the {DMAC, VLAN} pairs
> that the operating system has expressed its interest in, either due to
> those being the MAC addresses of one of the switch ports, or addresses
> added to our device's RX filter via calls to dev_uc_add/dev_mc_add.
> Then, the traffic which is not explicitly whitelisted is not sent by the
> hardware to the CPU, under the assumption that the CPU didn't ask for it
> and would have dropped it anyway.
> 
> The ground for these patches were the discussions surrounding RX
> filtering with switchdev in general, as well as with DSA in particular:
> 
> "[PATCH net-next 0/4] DSA: promisc on master, generic flow dissector code":
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg651922.html
> "[PATCH v3 net-next 2/2] net: dsa: felix: Allow unknown unicast traffic towards the CPU port module":
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg634859.html
> "[PATCH v3 0/2] net: core: Notify on changes to dev->promiscuity":
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/29/255
> LPC2019 - SwitchDev offload optimizations:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1HhxEcU7Jg
> 
> Unicast filtering comes to me as most important, and this includes
> termination of MAC addresses corresponding to the network interfaces in
> the system (DSA switch ports, VLAN sub-interfaces, bridge interface).
> The first 4 patches use Ivan Khoronzhuk's IVDF framework for extending
> network interface addresses with a Virtual ID (typically VLAN ID). This
> matches DSA switches perfectly because their FDB already contains keys
> of the {DMAC, VID} form.
> 
> Multicast filtering was taken and reworked from Florian Fainelli's
> previous attempts, according to my own understanding of multicast
> forwarding requirements of an IGMP snooping switch. This is the part
> that needs the most extra work, not only in the DSA core but also in
> drivers. For this reason, I've left out of this patchset anything that
> has to do with driver-level configuration (since the audience is a bit
> larger than usual), as I'm trying to focus more on policy for now, and
> the series is already pretty huge.


First off, thank you very much for collecting the various patches and
bringing them up to date, so far I only had a cursory look at your
patches and they do look good to me in principle. I plan on testing this
next week with the b53/bcm_sf2 switches and give you some more detailed
feedback.

Which of UC or MC filtering do you value the most for your use cases?
For me it would be MC filtering because the environment is usually
Set-top-box and streaming devices.
-- 
Florian