netdev at kapio-technology.com
2022-Aug-09 20:00 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers
On 2022-08-09 11:20, Ido Schimmel wrote:> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:33:49PM +0200, netdev at kapio-technology.com > wrote: >> On 2022-07-13 14:39, Ido Schimmel wrote: >> >> > >> > What are "Storm Prevention" and "zero-DPV" FDB entries? >> > >> >> For the zero-DPV entries, I can summarize: >> >> Since a CPU can become saturated from constant SA Miss Violations from >> a >> denied source, source MAC address are masked by loading a zero-DPV >> (Destination Port Vector) entry in the ATU. As the address now appears >> in >> the database it will not cause more Miss Violations. ANY port trying >> to send >> a frame to this unauthorized address is discarded. Any locked port >> trying to >> use this unauthorized address has its frames discarded too (as the >> ports SA >> bit is not set in the ATU entry). > > What happens to unlocked ports that have learning enabled and are > trying > to use this address as SMAC? AFAICT, at least in the bridge driver, the > locked entry will roam, but will keep the "locked" flag, which is > probably not what we want. Let's see if we can agree on these semantics > for a "locked" entry:The next version of this will block forwarding to locked entries in the bridge, so they will behave like the zero-DPV entries.> > 1. It discards packets with matching DMAC, regardless of ingress port. > I > read the document [1] you linked to in a different reply and could not > find anything against this approach, so this might be fine or at least > not very significant. > > Note that this means that "locked" entries need to be notified to > device > drivers so that they will install a matching entry in the HW FDB.Okay, so as V4 does (just without the error noted).> > 2. It is not refreshed and has ageing enabled. That is, after initial > installation it will be removed by the bridge driver after configured > ageing time unless converted to a regular (unlocked) entry. > > I assume this allows you to remove the timer implementation from your > driver and let the bridge driver notify you about the removal of this > entry.Okay, but only if the scheme is not so that the driver creates the locked entries itself, unless you indicate that the driver notifies the bridge, which then notifies back to the driver and installs the zero-DPV entry? If not I think the current implementation for the mv88e6xxx is fine.> > 3. With regards to roaming, the entry cannot roam between locked ports > (they need to have learning disabled anyway), but can roam to an > unlocked port, in which case it becomes a regular entry that can roam > and age. > > If we agree on these semantics, then I can try to verify that at least > Spectrum can support them (it seems mv88e6xxx can).The consensus here is that at least for the mv88e6xxx, learning should be on and link local learning should be blocked by the userspace setting you pointed to earlier.> > P.S. Sorry for the delay, I'm busy with other tasks at the moment.I understand :-)> > [1] > https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/solutions/Enterprise/Security/TrustSec_1-99/MAB/MAB_Dep_Guide.html#wp392522
Ido Schimmel
2022-Aug-10 07:21 UTC
[Bridge] [PATCH v4 net-next 3/6] drivers: net: dsa: add locked fdb entry flag to drivers
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 10:00:49PM +0200, netdev at kapio-technology.com wrote:> On 2022-08-09 11:20, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 05:33:49PM +0200, netdev at kapio-technology.com > > wrote: > > > On 2022-07-13 14:39, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > What are "Storm Prevention" and "zero-DPV" FDB entries? > > > > > > > > > > For the zero-DPV entries, I can summarize: > > > > > > Since a CPU can become saturated from constant SA Miss Violations > > > from a > > > denied source, source MAC address are masked by loading a zero-DPV > > > (Destination Port Vector) entry in the ATU. As the address now > > > appears in > > > the database it will not cause more Miss Violations. ANY port trying > > > to send > > > a frame to this unauthorized address is discarded. Any locked port > > > trying to > > > use this unauthorized address has its frames discarded too (as the > > > ports SA > > > bit is not set in the ATU entry). > > > > What happens to unlocked ports that have learning enabled and are trying > > to use this address as SMAC? AFAICT, at least in the bridge driver, the > > locked entry will roam, but will keep the "locked" flag, which is > > probably not what we want. Let's see if we can agree on these semantics > > for a "locked" entry: > > The next version of this will block forwarding to locked entries in the > bridge, so they will behave like the zero-DPV entries.I'm talking about roaming, not forwarding. Let's say you have a locked entry with MAC X pointing to port Y. Now you get a packet with SMAC X from port Z which is unlocked. Will the FDB entry roam to port Z? I think it should, but at least in current implementation it seems that the "locked" flag will not be reset and having locked entries pointing to an unlocked port looks like a bug.> > > > > 1. It discards packets with matching DMAC, regardless of ingress port. I > > read the document [1] you linked to in a different reply and could not > > find anything against this approach, so this might be fine or at least > > not very significant. > > > > Note that this means that "locked" entries need to be notified to device > > drivers so that they will install a matching entry in the HW FDB. > > Okay, so as V4 does (just without the error noted). > > > > > 2. It is not refreshed and has ageing enabled. That is, after initial > > installation it will be removed by the bridge driver after configured > > ageing time unless converted to a regular (unlocked) entry. > > > > I assume this allows you to remove the timer implementation from your > > driver and let the bridge driver notify you about the removal of this > > entry. > > Okay, but only if the scheme is not so that the driver creates the locked > entries itself, unless you indicate that the driver notifies the bridge, > which then notifies back to the driver and installs the zero-DPV entry? If > not I think the current implementation for the mv88e6xxx is fine.I don't see a problem in having the driver notifying the bridge about the installation of this entry and the bridge notifying the driver that the entry needs to be removed. It removes complexity from device drivers like mv88e6xxx and doesn't add extra complexity to the bridge driver. Actually, there is one complication, 'SWITCHDEV_FDB_ADD_TO_BRIDGE' will add the locked entry as externally learned, which means the bridge will not age it. Might need something like this: diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c index e7f4fccb6adb..5f73d0b44ed9 100644 --- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c @@ -530,7 +530,8 @@ void br_fdb_cleanup(struct work_struct *work) unsigned long this_timer = f->updated + delay; if (test_bit(BR_FDB_STATIC, &f->flags) || - test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &f->flags)) { + (test_bit(BR_FDB_ADDED_BY_EXT_LEARN, &f->flags) && + !test_bit(BR_FDB_ENTRY_LOCKED, &f->flags))) { if (test_bit(BR_FDB_NOTIFY, &f->flags)) { if (time_after(this_timer, now)) work_delay = min(work_delay,> > > > > 3. With regards to roaming, the entry cannot roam between locked ports > > (they need to have learning disabled anyway), but can roam to an > > unlocked port, in which case it becomes a regular entry that can roam > > and age. > > > > If we agree on these semantics, then I can try to verify that at least > > Spectrum can support them (it seems mv88e6xxx can). > > The consensus here is that at least for the mv88e6xxx, learning should be on > and link local learning should be blocked by the userspace setting you > pointed to earlier.Why learning needs to be on in the bridge (not mv88e6xxx) driver?