From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14ED1C63697 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 12:32:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF23F2224A for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 12:32:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727707AbgKUMbn (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Nov 2020 07:31:43 -0500 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:58790 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727486AbgKUMbn (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Nov 2020 07:31:43 -0500 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AB34E8E90 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC3ADA792 for ; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id 022D6DA78C; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AC4DA722; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:38 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (unknown [90.77.255.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4BC24265A5A; Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 13:31:38 +0100 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: Tobias Waldekranz , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, razor@blackwall.org, jeremy@azazel.net Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,v3 0/9] netfilter: flowtable bridge and vlan enhancements Message-ID: <20201121123138.GA21560@salvia> References: <20201111193737.1793-1-pablo@netfilter.org> <20201113175556.25e57856@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20201114115906.GA21025@salvia> <87sg9cjaxo.fsf@waldekranz.com> <20201114090347.2e7c1457@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20201116221815.GA6682@salvia> <20201116142844.7c492fb6@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20201116223615.GA6967@salvia> <20201116144521.771da0c6@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20201116225658.GA7247@salvia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201116225658.GA7247@salvia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 11:56:58PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 02:45:21PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 23:36:15 +0100 Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > Are you saying A -> B traffic won't match so it will update the cache, > > > > since conntrack flows are bi-directional? > > > > > > Yes, Traffic for A -> B won't match the flowtable entry, this will > > > update the cache. > > > > That's assuming there will be A -> B traffic without B sending a > > request which reaches A, first. > > B might send packets to A but this will not get anywhere. Assuming > TCP, this will trigger retransmissions so B -> A will kick in to > refresh the entry. > > Is this scenario that you describe a showstopper? I have been discussing the topology update by tracking fdb updates with the bridge maintainer, I'll be exploring extensions to the existing fdb_notify() infrastructure to deal with this scenario you describe. On my side this topology update scenario is not a priority to be supported in this patchset, but it's feasible to support it later on.