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

[Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 04:27:52PM +0300, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> I tried looking information about MAB online, but couldn't find
> detailed material that answers my questions, so my answers are based
> on what I believe is logical, which might be wrong.

I'm kind of in the same situation here.

> Currently, the bridge will forward packets to a locked entry which
> effectively means that an unauthorized host can cause the bridge to
> direct packets to it and sniff them. Yes, the host can't send any
> packets through the port (while locked) and can't overtake an existing
> (unlocked) FDB entry, but it still seems like an odd decision. IMO, the
> situation in mv88e6xxx is even worse because there an unauthorized host
> can cause packets to a certain DMAC to be blackholed via its zero-DPV
> entry.
> 
> Another (minor?) issue is that locked entries cannot roam between locked
> ports. Lets say that my user space MAB policy is to authorize MAC X if
> it appears behind one of the locked ports swp1-swp4. An unauthorized
> host behind locked port swp5 can generate packets with SMAC X,
> preventing the true owner of this MAC behind swp1 from ever being
> authorized.

In the mv88e6xxx offload implementation, the locked entries eventually
age out from time to time, practically giving the true owner of the MAC
address another chance every 5 minutes or so. In the pure software
implementation of locked FDB entries I'm not quite sure. It wouldn't
make much sense for the behavior to differ significantly though.

> It seems like the main purpose of these locked entries is to signal to
> user space the presence of a certain MAC behind a locked port, but they
> should not be able to affect packet forwarding in the bridge, unlike
> regular entries.

So essentially what you want is for br_handle_frame_finish() to treat
"dst = br_fdb_find_rcu(br, eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest, vid);" as NULL if
test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCKED, &dst->flags) is true?

> Regarding a separate knob for MAB, I tend to agree we need it. Otherwise
> we cannot control which locked ports are able to populate the FDB with
> locked entries. I don't particularly like the fact that we overload an
> existing flag ("learning") for that. Any reason not to add an explicit
> flag ("mab")? At least with the current implementation, locked entries
> cannot roam between locked ports and cannot be refreshed, which differs
> from regular learning.

Well, assuming we model the software bridge closer to mv88e6xxx (where
locked FDB entries can roam after a certain time), does this change things?
In the software implementation I think it would make sense for them to
be able to roam right away (the age-out interval in mv88e6xxx is just a
compromise between responsiveness to roaming and resistance to DoS).