netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 08/13] net: bridge: avoid classifying unknown multicast as mrouters

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: <96bb8ff0-26d8-e9d3-e7c8-78f2abd28126@blackwall.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:55:09 +0300
From:   Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
To:     Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@...il.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 08/13] net: bridge: avoid classifying unknown
 multicast as mrouters_only

On 13/04/2022 11:51, Joachim Wiberg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 20:37, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org> wrote:
>> On 12/04/2022 20:27, Joachim Wiberg wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> From this I'd like to argue that our current behavior in the bridge is
>>> wrong.  To me it's clear that, since we have a confiugration option, we
>>> should forward unknown IP multicast to all MCAST_FLOOD ports (as well as
>>> the router ports).
>> Definitely not wrong. In fact:
>> "Switches that do not forward unregistered packets to all ports must
>>  include a configuration option to force the flooding of unregistered
>>  packets on specified ports. [..]"
>> is already implemented because the admin can mark any port as a router and
>> enable flooding to it.
> 
> Hmm, I understand your point (here and below), and won't drive this
> point further.  Instead I'll pick up on what you said in your first
> reply ... (below, last)
> 
> Btw, thank you for taking the time to reply and explain your standpoint,
> really helps my understanding of how we can develop the bridge further,
> without breaking userspace! :)
> 
>>> [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4541.html#section-2.1.2
>> RFC4541 is only recommending, it's not a mandatory behaviour. This
>> default has been placed for a very long time and a lot of users and
>> tests take it into consideration.
> 
> Noted.
> 
>> We cannot break such assumptions and start suddenly flooding packets,
>> but we can leave it up to the admin or distribution/network software
>> to configure it as default.
> 
> So, if I add a bridge flag, default off as you mentioned out earlier,
> which changes the default behavior of MCAST_FLOOD, then you'd be OK with
> that?  Something cheeky like this perhaps:
> 
>     if (!ipv4_is_local_multicast(ip_hdr(skb)->daddr))
>        	BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->mrouters_only = !br_opt_get(br, BROPT_MCAST_FLOOD_RFC4541);

Exactly! And that is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote it. :)

Thanks,
 Nik

> 
> 
> Best regards
>  /Joachim