Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 15:04:59 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     netdev@kapio-technology.com
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
        Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@nvidia.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 5/6] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB
 implementation
Message-ID: <20220721120459.x6mm4coeoe4ecjfv@skbuf>
References: <20220707152930.1789437-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20220707152930.1789437-6-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20220717004725.ngix64ou2mz566is@skbuf>
 <3918e3d1a8b78dedc14b950ba1eee8d5@kapio-technology.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3918e3d1a8b78dedc14b950ba1eee8d5@kapio-technology.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 02:34:22PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com wrote:
> > If I were to randomly guess at almost 4AM in the morning, it has to do with
> > "bridge fdb add" rather than the "bridge fdb replace" that's used for
> > the MAB selftest. The fact I pointed out a few revisions ago, that MAB
> > needs to be opt-in, is now coming back to bite us. Since it's not
> > opt-in, the mv88e6xxx driver always creates locked FDB entries, and when
> > we try to "bridge fdb add", the kernel says "hey, the FDB entry is
> > already there!". Is that it?
> 
> Yes, that sounds like a reasonable explanation, as it adds 'ext learned,
> offloaded' entries. If you try and replace the 'add' with 'replace' in those
> tests, does it work?

Well, you have access to the selftests too... But yes, that is the
reason, and it works when I change 'add' to 'replace', although of
course this isn't the correct solution.

> > As for how to opt into MAB. Hmm. MAB seems to be essentially CPU
> > assisted learning, which creates locked FDB entries. I wonder whether we
> > should reconsider the position that address learning makes no sense on
> > locked ports, and say that "+locked -learning" means no MAB, and
> > "+locked +learning" means MAB? This would make a bunch of things more
> > natural to handle in the kernel, and would also give us the opt-in we
> > need.
> 
> I have done the one and then the other. We need to have some final decision
> on this point. And remember that this gave rise to an extra patch to fix
> link-local learning if learning is turned on on a locked port, which
> resulted in the decision to allways have learning off on locked ports.

I think part of the reason for the back-and-forth was not making a very
clear distinction between basic 802.1X using hostapd, and MAB. While I
agree hostapd doesn't have what to do with learning, for MAB I'm still
wondering. It's the same situation for mv88e6xxx's Port Association
Vector in fact.

> > Side note, the VTU and ATU member violation printks annoy me so badly.
> > They aren't stating something super useful and they're a DoS attack
> > vector in itself, even if they're rate limited. I wonder whether we
> > could just turn the prints into a set of ethtool counters and call it a
> > day?
> 
> Sounds like a good idea to me. :-)

Thinking this through, what we really want is trace points here,
otherwise we'd lose information about which MAC address/VID/FID was it
that caused the violation.