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:   Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:16:21 +0200
To:     Vladimir Oltean <>
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        Andrew Lunn <>,
        Vivien Didelot <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <>,
        Woojung Huh <>,, Sean Wang <>,
        Landen Chao <>,
        DENG Qingfang <>,
        Matthias Brugger <>,
        Claudiu Manoil <>,
        Alexandre Belloni <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Ivan Vecera <>,
        Roopa Prabhu <>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <>,
        Shuah Khan <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Christian Marangi <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Yuwei Wang <>,
        Petr Machata <>,
        Ido Schimmel <>,
        Florent Fourcot <>,
        Hans Schultz <>,
        Joachim Wiberg <>,
        Amit Cohen <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 net-next 10/12] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB

On 2022-10-21 13:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 08:47:42AM +0200, 
> wrote:
>> On 2022-10-21 00:57, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 10:20:50PM +0200,
>> > wrote:
>> > > In general locked ports block traffic from a host based on if there
>> > > is a
>> > > FDB entry or not. In the non-offloaded case, there is only CPU
>> > > assisted
>> > > learning, so the normal learning mechanism has to be disabled as any
>> > > learned entry will open the port for the learned MAC,vlan.
>> >
>> > Does it have to be that way? Why can't BR_LEARNING on a BR_PORT_LOCKED
>> > cause the learned FDB entries to have BR_FDB_LOCKED, and everything
>> > would be ok in that case (the port will not be opened for the learned
>> > MAC/VLAN)?
>> I suppose you are right that basing it solely on BR_FDB_LOCKED is 
>> possible.
>> The question is then maybe if the common case where you don't need 
>> learned
>> entries for the scheme to work, e.g. with EAPOL link local packets, 
>> requires
>> less CPU load to work and is cleaner than if using BR_FDB_LOCKED 
>> entries?
> I suppose the real question is what does the bridge currently do with
> BR_LEARNING + BR_PORT_LOCKED, and if that is sane and useful in any 
> case?
> It isn't a configuration that's rejected, for sure. The configuration
> could be rejected via a bug fix patch, then in net-next it could be 
> made
> to learn these addresses with the BR_FDB_LOCKED flag.
> To your question regarding the common case (no MAB): that can be 
> supported
> just fine when BR_LEARNING is off and BR_PORT_LOCKED is on, no?
> No BR_FDB_LOCKED entries will be learned.

As it is now in the bridge, the locked port part is handled before 
in the ingress data path, so with BR_LEARNING and BR_PORT_LOCKED, I 
think it
will work as it does now except link local packages.

If your suggestion of BR_LEARNING causing BR_FDB_LOCKED on a locked 
port, I
guess it would be implemented under br_fdb_update() and BR_LEARNING +
BR_PORT_LOCKED would go together, forcing BR_LEARNING in this case, thus 
for all drivers?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists