Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] bridge: Add a limit on FDB entries
From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@blackwall.org>
Date: 2023-05-16 08:38:19
Also in:
bridge
On 15/05/2023 11:50, Johannes Nixdorf wrote:
A malicious actor behind one bridge port may spam the kernel with packets
with a random source MAC address, each of which will create an FDB entry,
each of which is a dynamic allocation in the kernel.
There are roughly 2^48 different MAC addresses, further limited by the
rhashtable they are stored in to 2^31. Each entry is of the type struct
net_bridge_fdb_entry, which is currently 128 bytes big. This means the
maximum amount of memory allocated for FDB entries is 2^31 * 128B =
256GiB, which is too much for most computers.
Mitigate this by adding a bridge netlink setting IFLA_BR_FDB_MAX_ENTRIES,
which, if nonzero, limits the amount of entries to a user specified
maximum.
For backwards compatibility the default setting of 0 disables the limit.
All changes to fdb_n_entries are under br->hash_lock, which means we do
not need additional locking. The call paths are (✓ denotes that
br->hash_lock is taken around the next call):
- fdb_delete <-+- fdb_delete_local <-+- br_fdb_changeaddr ✓
| +- br_fdb_change_mac_address ✓
| +- br_fdb_delete_by_port ✓
+- br_fdb_find_delete_local ✓
+- fdb_add_local <-+- br_fdb_changeaddr ✓
| +- br_fdb_change_mac_address ✓
| +- br_fdb_add_local ✓
+- br_fdb_cleanup ✓
+- br_fdb_flush ✓
+- br_fdb_delete_by_port ✓
+- fdb_delete_by_addr_and_port <--- __br_fdb_delete ✓
+- br_fdb_external_learn_del ✓
- fdb_create <-+- fdb_add_local <-+- br_fdb_changeaddr ✓
| +- br_fdb_change_mac_address ✓
| +- br_fdb_add_local ✓
+- br_fdb_update ✓
+- fdb_add_entry <--- __br_fdb_add ✓
+- br_fdb_external_learn_add ✓
Signed-off-by: Johannes Nixdorf <redacted>
---
include/uapi/linux/if_link.h | 1 +
net/bridge/br_device.c | 2 ++
net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 6 ++++++
net/bridge/br_netlink.c | 9 ++++++++-
net/bridge/br_private.h | 2 ++
5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)I completely missed the fact that you don't deal with the situation where you already have fdbs created and a limit is set later, then it would be useless because it will start counting from 0 even though there are already entries. Also another issue that came to mind is that you don't deal with fdb_create() for "special" entries, i.e. when adding a port. Currently it will print an error, but you should revisit all callers and see where it might be a problem.