On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 03:19:46PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:

On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 09:52:15AM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:

quoted

On tor, mar 17, 2022 at 01:34, Vladimir Oltean [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:46:51AM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

@@ -396,6 +414,13 @@ static irqreturn_t mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_prob_irq_thread_fn(int irq, void *dev_id)
 				    "ATU miss violation for %pM portvec %x spid %d\n",
 				    entry.mac, entry.portvec, spid);
 		chip->ports[spid].atu_miss_violation++;
+		if (mv88e6xxx_port_is_locked(chip, chip->ports[spid].port))
+			err = mv88e6xxx_switchdev_handle_atu_miss_violation(chip,
+									    chip->ports[spid].port,
+									    &entry,
+									    fid);

Do we want to suppress the ATU miss violation warnings if we're going to
notify the bridge, or is it better to keep them for some reason?
My logic is that they're part of normal operation, so suppressing makes
sense.

I have been seeing many ATU member violations after the miss violation is
handled (using ping), and I think it could be considered to suppress the ATU member
violations interrupts by setting the IgnoreWrongData bit for the
port (sect 4.4.7). This would be something to do whenever a port is set in locked mode?

So the first packet with a given MAC SA triggers an ATU miss violation
interrupt.

You program that MAC SA into the ATU with a destination port mask of all
zeroes. This suppresses further ATU miss interrupts for this MAC SA, but
now generates ATU member violations, because the MAC SA _is_ present in
the ATU, but not towards the expected port (in fact, towards _no_ port).

Especially if user space decides it doesn't want to authorize this MAC
SA, it really becomes a problem because this is now a vector for denial
of service, with every packet triggering an ATU member violation
interrupt.

So your suggestion is to set the IgnoreWrongData bit on locked ports,
and this will suppress the actual member violation interrupts for
traffic coming from these ports.

So if the user decides to unplug a previously authorized printer from
switch port 1 and move it to port 2, how is this handled? If there isn't
a mechanism in place to delete the locked FDB entry when the printer
goes away, then by setting IgnoreWrongData you're effectively also
suppressing migration notifications.

I don't think such a scenario is so realistic, as changing port is not
just something done casually, besides port 2 then must also be a locked
port to have the same policy.

I think it is very realistic. It is also something which does not work
is going to cause a lot of confusion. People will blame the printer,
when in fact they should be blaming the switch. They will be rebooting
the printer, when in fact, they need to reboot the switch etc.

I expect there is a way to cleanly support this, you just need to
figure it out.

Hans, why must port 2 also be a locked port? The FDB entry with no
destinations is present in the ATU, and static, why would just locked
ports match it?

quoted

The other aspect is that the user space daemon that authorizes catches
the fdb add entry events and checks if it is a locked entry. So it will
be up to said daemon to decide the policy, like remove the fdb entry
after a timeout.

When you say 'timeout', what is the moment when the timer starts counting?
The last reception of the user space daemon of a packet with this MAC SA,
or the moment when the FDB entry originally became unlocked?

I expect that once a device is authorized, and forwarding towards the
devices that it wants to talk to is handled in hardware, that the CPU no
longer receives packets from this device. In other words, are you saying
that you're going to break networking for the printer every 5 minutes,
as a keepalive measure?

I still think there should be a functional fast path for authorized
station migrations.

quoted

quoted

Oh, btw, my question was: could you consider suppressing the _prints_ on
an ATU miss violation on a locked port?

As there will only be such on the first packet, I think it should be
logged and those prints serve that purpose, so I think it is best to
keep the print.
If in the future some tests or other can argue for suppressing the
prints, it is an easy thing to do.

Please use a traffic generator and try to DOS one of your own
switches. Can you?

	  Andrew