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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <a6ec816279b282a4ea72252a7400d5b3@kapio-technology.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2022 15:09:10 +0200 From: netdev@...io-technology.com To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...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>, Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers On 2022-07-17 14:57, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 02:21:47PM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com > wrote: >> On 2022-07-13 14:39, Ido Schimmel wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 09:09:58AM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com >> > wrote: >> >> > >> > What are "Storm Prevention" and "zero-DPV" FDB entries? >> >> They are both FDB entries that at the HW level drops all packets >> having a >> specific SA, thus using minimum resources. >> (thus the name "Storm Prevention" aka, protection against DOS attacks. >> We >> must remember that we operate with CPU based learning.) > > DPV means Destination Port Vector, and an ATU entry with a DPV of 0 > essentially means a FDB entry pointing nowhere, so it will drop the > packet. That's a slight problem with Hans' implementation, the bridge > thinks that the locked FDB entry belongs to port X, but in reality it > matches on all bridged ports (since it matches by FID). FID allocation > in mv88e6xxx is slightly strange, all VLAN-unaware bridge ports, > belonging to any bridge, share the same FID, so the FDB databases are > not exactly isolated from each other. But if the locked port is vlan aware and has a pvid, it should not block other ports. Besides the fid will be zero with vlan unaware afaik, and all with zero fid do not create locked entries.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists