netdev - Re: dsa/mv88e6xxx: leaking packets on MV88E6341 switch

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, 1 Dec 2020 09:49:17 +0100
From:   Peter Vollmer <peter.vollmer@...il.com>
To:     Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dsa/mv88e6xxx: leaking packets on MV88E6341 switch

On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 10:41:44PM +0100, Tobias Waldekranz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 15:09, Peter Vollmer <peter.vollmer@...il.com> wrote:
> > - pinging from client0 (connected to lan0 ) to the bridge IP, the ping
> > requests (only the requests) are also seen on client1 connected to
> > lan1
> 
> This is the expected behavior of the current implementation I am
> afraid. It stems from the fact that the CPU responds to the echo request
> (or to any other request for that matter) with a FROM_CPU. This means
> that no learning takes place, and the SA of br0 will thus never reach
> the switch's FDB. So while client0 knows the MAC of br0, the switch
> (very counter-intuitively) does not.
> 
> The result is that the unicast echo request sent by client0 is flooded
> as unknown unicast by the switch. This way it reaches the CPU but also,
> as you have discovered, all other ports that allow unknown unicast to
> egress.
> 

Thanks for this explanation. Would there be a way to inject the br0 MAC
into the switch FDB using 'bridge fdb' or some other tool as a
workaround ?
And is this behaviour the same with all other DSA capable
switches (or at least the mv88e6xxx ones)?  Will this change eventually 
after the implementation is complete ?

Thanks and best regards

  Peter