netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/10] MC Flood disable and snooping

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: <651c87fc-1f21-4153-bade-2dad048eecbd@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 16:22:43 -0400
From: Joseph Huang <joseph.huang.2024@...il.com>
To: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
 Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Joseph Huang <Joseph.Huang@...min.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...dia.com>, Linus Lüssing
 <linus.luessing@...3.blue>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 bridge@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/10] MC Flood disable and snooping

On 4/5/2024 7:00 AM, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 4/5/24 13:20, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 06:16:12PM -0400, Joseph Huang wrote:
>>>>> mcast_flood == off:
>>>>> - mcast_ipv4_ctrl_flood: don't care (maybe can force to "off")
>>>>> - mcast_ipv4_data_flood: don't care
>>>>> - mcast_ipv6_ctrl_flood: don't care
>>>>> - mcast_ipv6_data_flood: don't care
>>>>> - mcast_l2_flood: don't care
>>>>> mcast_flood == on:
>>>>> - Flood 224.0.0.x according to mcast_ipv4_ctrl_flood
>>>>> - Flood all other IPv4 multicast according to mcast_ipv4_data_flood
>>>>> - Flood ff02::/16 according to mcast_ipv6_ctrl_flood
>>>>> - Flood all other IPv6 multicast according to mcast_ipv6_data_flood
>>>>> - Flood L2 according to mcast_l2_flood
>>>
>>> Did you mean
>>>
>>> if mcast_flood == on (meaning mcast_flood is ENABLED)
>>> - mcast_ipv4_ctrl_flood: don't care (since 224.0.0.x will be flooded 
>>> anyway)
>>> ...
>>>
>>> if mcast_flood == off (meaning mcast_flood is DISABLED)
>>> - Flood 224.0.0.x according to mcast_ipv4_ctrl_flood
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ? Otherwise the problem is still not solved when mcast_flood is 
>>> disabled.
>>
>> No, I mean exactly as I said. My goal was not to "solve the problem"
>> when mcast_flood is disabled, but to give you an option to configure the
>> bridge to achieve what you want, in a way which I think is more 
>> acceptable.
>>
>> AFAIU, there is not really any "problem" - the bridge behaves exactly as
>> instructed given the limited language available to instruct it 
>> ("mcast_flood"
>> covers all multicast). So the other knobs have the role of fine-tuning
>> what gets flooded when mcast_flood is on. Like "yes, but..."
>>
>> You can't "solve the problem" when it involves changing an established
>> behavior that somebody probably depended on to be just like that.
>>
>>>> Yep, sounds good to me. I was thinking about something in these lines
>>>> as well if doing a kernel solution in order to make it simpler and more
>>>> generic. The ctrl flood bits need to be handled more carefully to make
>>>> sure they match only control traffic and not link-local data.
>>>
>>> Do we consider 224.0.0.251 (mDNS) to be control or data? What 
>>> qualifies as
>>> control I guess that's my question.
>>
>> Well, as I said, I'm proposing that 224.0.0.x qualifies as control and
>> the rest of IPv4 multicast as data. Which means that, applied to your
>> case, "mcast_flood on mcast_ipv4_ctrl_flood on mcast_ipv4_data_flood off"
>> will "force flood" mDNS just like the IGMP traffic from your patches.
>> I'm not aware if this could be considered problematic (I don't think so).
>>
>> The reason behind this proposal is that, AFAIU, endpoints may choose to
>> join IGMP groups in the 224.0.0.x range or not, but RFC4541 says that
>> switches shouldn't prune the destinations towards endpoints that don't
>> join this range anyway: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4541#page-6
>>
>> Whereas for IP multicast traffic towards an address outside 224.0.0.x,
>> pruning will happen as per the IGMP join tracking mechanism.
> 
> +1, non-IGMP traffic to 224.0.0.x must be flooded to all anyway
> so this should allow for a better control over it, but perhaps
> the naming should be link_local instead because control usually
> means IGMP, maybe something like mcast_ip_link_local_flood
> 

Like this?

bridge link set dev swp0 mcast_flood off
   - all flooding disabled

bridge link set dev swp0 mcast_flood on
   - all flooding enabled

bridge link set dev swp0 mcast_flood on mcast_ipv4_data_flood off 
mcast_ipv6_data_flood off
   - IPv4 data packets flooding disabled, IPv6 data packets flooding 
disabled, everything else floods (that is to say, only allow IPv4 local 
subnet and IPv6 link-local to flood)

?

The syntax seems to be counterintuitive.

Or like this?

bridge link set dev swp0 mcast_flood on mcast_ipv4_ctrl_flood on
   - only allow IPv4 local subnet to flood, everything else off

?

So basically the question is, what should the behavior be when something 
is omitted from the command line?