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).