netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers

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: <480c7e1e9faa207f37258d8e1b955adc@kapio-technology.com>
Date:   Sun, 17 Jul 2022 18:10:22 +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 17:08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 04:57:50PM +0200, netdev@...io-technology.com 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Maybe I am just trying to understand the problem you are posing, so 
>> afaics
>> MAC addresses should be unique and having the same MAC address behind 
>> a
>> locked port and a not-locked port seems like a mis-configuration 
>> regardless
>> of vlan setup? As the zero-DPV entry only blocks the specific SA MAC 
>> on a
>> specific vlan, which is behind a locked port, there shouldn't be any
>> problem...?
>> 
>> If the host behind a locked port starts sending on another vlan than 
>> where
>> it got the first locked entry, another locked entry will occur, as the
>> locked entries are MAC + vlan.
> 
> I don't think it's an invalid configuration, I have a 17-port Marvell
> switch which I use as infrastructure to connect my PC with my board 
> farm
> and to the Internet. I've cropped 4 out of those 17 ports for use in
> selftests, effectively now having 2 bridges (br0 used by the selftests
> and br-lan for systemd-networkd).
> 
> Currently all the traffic sent and received by the selftests is done
> through lan1-lan4, but if I wanted to run some bridge locked port tests
> with traffic from my PC, what I'd do is I'd connect a (locked) port 
> from br0
> to a port from br-lan, and my PC would thus gain indirect connectivity 
> to the
> locked port.
> 
> Then I'd send a packet and the switch would create a locked FDB entry
> for my PC's MAC address, but that FDB entry would span across the 
> entire
> MV88E6XXX_FID_BRIDGED, so practically speaking, it would block my PC's
> MAC address from doing anything, including accessing the Internet, i.e.
> traffic that has nothing at all to do with the locked port in br0.
> That isn't quite ok.

Okay, I see the problem you refer to. I think that we have to accept 
some limitations unless you think that just zeroing the specific port 
bit in the DPV would be a better solution, and there wouldn't be caveats 
with that besides having to do a FDB search etc to get the correct DPV 
if I am not too mistaken.

Also trunk ports is a limitation as that is not supported in this 
implementation.