[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ae1fb003f7e1abdecaa36243e3b1a16c@kapio-technology.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 13:34:21 +0200
From: netdev@...io-technology.com
To: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@...ke-m.de>,
Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, Sean Wang <sean.wang@...iatek.com>,
Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@...iatek.com>,
DENG Qingfang <dqfext@...il.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.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>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 1/6] net: bridge: add locked entry fdb flag to
extend locked port feature
On 2022-08-27 17:19, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>
> How about the below (untested):
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_input.c b/net/bridge/br_input.c
> index 68b3e850bcb9..9143a94a1c57 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_input.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_input.c
> @@ -109,9 +109,18 @@ int br_handle_frame_finish(struct net *net,
> struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb
> struct net_bridge_fdb_entry *fdb_src =
> br_fdb_find_rcu(br, eth_hdr(skb)->h_source,
> vid);
>
> - if (!fdb_src || READ_ONCE(fdb_src->dst) != p ||
> - test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb_src->flags))
> + if (!fdb_src) {
> + if (p->flags & BR_PORT_MAB) {
> + __set_bit(BR_FDB_ENTRY_LOCKED, &flags);
> + br_fdb_update(br, p,
> eth_hdr(skb)->h_source,
> + vid, flags);
> + }
> + goto drop;
> + } else if (READ_ONCE(fdb_src->dst) != p ||
> + test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &fdb_src->flags) ||
> + test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCKED, &fdb_src->flags)) {
> goto drop;
> + }
> }
>
> The semantics are very clear, IMO. On FDB miss, add a locked FDB entry
> and drop the packet. On FDB mismatch, drop the packet.
>
> Entry can roam from an unauthorized port to an authorized port, but not
> the other way around. Not sure what is the use case for allowing
> roaming
> between unauthorized ports.
>
> Note that with the above, locked entries are not refreshed and will
> therefore age out unless replaced by user space.
>
Okay, I got the semantics (locked/unlocked vs unauthorized/authorized)
reversed, so I will go with your suggestion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists