netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net 5/6] net: enetc: don't disable VLAN filtering in IFF

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:   Fri, 26 Feb 2021 15:28:36 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        Markus Blöchl <Markus.Bloechl@...tronik.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net 5/6] net: enetc: don't disable VLAN filtering in
 IFF_PROMISC mode

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:18:34 +0200 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Quoting from the blamed commit:
> 
>     In promiscuous mode, it is more intuitive that all traffic is received,
>     including VLAN tagged traffic. It appears that it is necessary to set
>     the flag in PSIPVMR for that to be the case, so VLAN promiscuous mode is
>     also temporarily enabled. On exit from promiscuous mode, the setting
>     made by ethtool is restored.
> 
> Intuitive or not, there isn't any definition issued by a standards body
> which says that promiscuity has anything to do with VLAN filtering - it
> only has to do with accepting packets regardless of destination MAC address.
> 
> In fact people are already trying to use this misunderstanding/bug of
> the enetc driver as a justification to transform promiscuity into
> something it never was about: accepting every packet (maybe that would
> be the "rx-all" netdev feature?):
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20201110153958.ci5ekor3o2ekg3ky@ipetronik.com/
> 
> So we should avoid that and delete the bogus logic in enetc.

I don't understand what you're fixing tho.

Are we trying to establish vlan-filter-on as the expected behavior?