netdev - Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 1/4] net: bridge: add fdb flag to extent locked port feature

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, 24 May 2022 18:21:02 +0200
From:   Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@...il.com>
To:     Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        Hans Schultz <schultz.hans@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        kuba@...nel.org
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 net-next 1/4] net: bridge: add fdb flag to extent
 locked port feature

>
> Hi Hans,
> So this approach has a fundamental problem, f->dst is changed without any synchronization
> you cannot rely on it and thus you cannot account for these entries properly. We must be very
> careful if we try to add any new synchronization not to affect performance as well.
> More below...
>
>> @@ -319,6 +326,9 @@ static void fdb_delete(struct net_bridge *br, struct net_bridge_fdb_entry *f,
>>  	if (test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &f->flags))
>>  		fdb_del_hw_addr(br, f->key.addr.addr);
>>  
>> +	if (test_bit(BR_FDB_ENTRY_LOCKED, &f->flags) && !test_bit(BR_FDB_OFFLOADED, &f->flags))
>> +		atomic_dec(&f->dst->locked_entry_cnt);
>
> Sorry but you cannot do this for multiple reasons:
>  - f->dst can be NULL
>  - f->dst changes without any synchronization
>  - there is no synchronization between fdb's flags and its ->dst
>
> Cheers,
>  Nik

Hi Nik,

if a port is decoupled from the bridge, the locked entries would of
course be invalid, so maybe if adding and removing a port is accounted
for wrt locked entries and the count of locked entries, would that not
work?

Best,
Hans