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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:01:18 +0200
From:   netdev@kapio-technology.com
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@linutronix.de>,
        Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@microchip.com>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com, Sean Wang <sean.wang@mediatek.com>,
        Landen Chao <Landen.Chao@mediatek.com>,
        DENG Qingfang <dqfext@gmail.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.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>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Yuwei Wang <wangyuweihx@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org,
        bridge@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add test of
 MAC-Auth Bypass to locked port tests
In-Reply-To: <YwxtVhlPjq+M9QMY@shredder>
References: <20220826114538.705433-1-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <20220826114538.705433-7-netdev@kapio-technology.com>
 <YwpgvkojEdytzCAB@shredder>
 <7654860e4d7d43c15d482c6caeb6a773@kapio-technology.com>
 <YwxtVhlPjq+M9QMY@shredder>
User-Agent: Gigahost Webmail
Message-ID: <2967ccc234bb672f5440a4b175b73768@kapio-technology.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-08-29 09:40, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 02:00:29PM +0200, netdev@kapio-technology.com 
> wrote:
>> On 2022-08-27 20:21, Ido Schimmel wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 01:45:38PM +0200, Hans Schultz wrote:
>> > > +locked_port_mab()
>> > > +{
>> > > +	RET=0
>> > > +	check_locked_port_support || return 0
>> > > +
>> > > +	ping_do $h1 192.0.2.2
>> > > +	check_err $? "MAB: Ping did not work before locking port"
>> > > +
>> > > +	bridge link set dev $swp1 locked on
>> > > +	bridge link set dev $swp1 learning on
>> >
>> > "locked on learning on" is counter intuitive and IMO very much a
>> > misconfiguration that we should have disallowed when the "locked" option
>> > was introduced. It is my understanding that the only reason we are even
>> > talking about it is because mv88e6xxx needs it for MAB for some reason.
>> 
>> As the way mv88e6xxx implements "learning off" is to remove port 
>> association
>> for ingress packets on a port, but that breaks many other things such 
>> as
>> refreshing ATU entries and violation interrupts, so it is needed and 
>> the
>> question is then what is the worst to have 'learning on' on a locked 
>> port or
>> to have the locked port enabling learning in the driver silently?
>> 
>> Opinions seem to differ. Note that even on locked ports without MAB, 
>> port
>> association on ingress is still needed in future as I have a dynamic 
>> ATU
>> patch set coming, that uses age out violation and hardware refreshing 
>> to let
>> the hardware keep the dynamic entries as long as the authorized 
>> station is
>> sending, but will age the entry out if the station keeps silent for 
>> the
>> ageing time. But that patch set is dependent on this patch set, and I 
>> don't
>> think I can send it before this is accepted...
> 
> Can you explain how you envision user space to work once everything is
> merged? I want to make sure we have the full picture before more stuff
> is merged. From what you describe, I expect the following:
> 
> 1. Create topology, assuming two unauthorized ports:
> 
> # ip link add name br0 type bridge no_linklocal_learn 1 (*)
> # ip link set dev swp1 master br0
> # ip link set dev swp2 master br0
> # bridge link set dev swp1 learning on locked on
> # bridge link set dev swp2 learning on locked on

The final decision on this rests with you I would say. Actually I forgot 
to remove the port association in the driver in this version.

> # ip link set dev swp1 up
> # ip link set dev swp2 up
> # ip link set dev br0 up
> 
> 2. Assuming h1 behind swp1 was authorized using 802.1X:
> 
> # bridge fdb replace $H1_MAC dev swp1 master dynamic

With the new MAB flag 'replace' is not needed when MAB is not enabled.

> 
> 3. Assuming 802.1X authentication failed for h2 behind swp2, enable 
> MAB:
> 
> # bridge link set dev swp2 mab on
> 
> 4. Assuming $H2_MAC is in our allow list:
> 
> # bridge fdb replace $H2_MAC dev swp2 master dynamic
> 
> Learning is on in order to refresh the dynamic entries that user space
> installed.

Yes, port association is needed for those reasons. :-)

> 
> (*) Need to add support for this option in iproute2. Already exposed
> over netlink (see 'IFLA_BR_MULTI_BOOLOPT').

Should I do that in this patch set?