On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 05:45:44PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> On 08/10/2024 17:30, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > Hi Nikolay,
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 05:06:56PM +0300, Nikolay Aleksandrov wrote:
> >> On 05/10/2024 04:44, Amedeo Baragiola wrote:
> >>> Since commit 751de2012eaf ("netfilter: br_netfilter: skip conntrack input hook for promisc packets")
> >>> a second argument (promisc) has been added to br_pass_frame_up which
> >>> represents whether the interface is in promiscuous mode. However,
> >>> internally - in one remaining case - br_pass_frame_up checks the device
> >>> flags derived from skb instead of the argument being passed in.
> >>> This one-line changes addresses this inconsistency.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Amedeo Baragiola <ingamedeo@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> net/bridge/br_input.c | 3 +--
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_input.c b/net/bridge/br_input.c
> >>> index ceaa5a89b947..156c18f42fa3 100644
> >>> --- a/net/bridge/br_input.c
> >>> +++ b/net/bridge/br_input.c
> >>> @@ -50,8 +50,7 @@ static int br_pass_frame_up(struct sk_buff *skb, bool promisc)
> >>> * packet is allowed except in promisc mode when someone
> >>> * may be running packet capture.
> >>> */
> >>> - if (!(brdev->flags & IFF_PROMISC) &&
> >>> - !br_allowed_egress(vg, skb)) {
> >>> + if (!promisc && !br_allowed_egress(vg, skb)) {
> >>> kfree_skb(skb);
> >>> return NET_RX_DROP;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> This is subtle, but it does change behaviour when a BR_FDB_LOCAL dst
> >> is found it will always drop the traffic after this patch (w/ promisc) if it
> >> doesn't pass br_allowed_egress(). It would've been allowed before, but current
> >> situation does make the patch promisc bit inconsistent, i.e. we get
> >> there because of BR_FDB_LOCAL regardless of the promisc flag.
> >>
> >> Because we can have a BR_FDB_LOCAL dst and still pass up such skb because of
> >> the flag instead of local_rcv (see br_br_handle_frame_finish()).
> >>
> >> CCing also Pablo for a second pair of eyes and as the original patch
> >> author. :)
> >>
> >> Pablo WDYT?
> >>
> >> Just FYI we definitely want to see all traffic if promisc is set, so
> >> this patch is a no-go.
> >
> > promisc is always _false_ for BR_FDB_LOCAL dst:
> >
> > if (dst) {
> > unsigned long now = jiffies;
> >
> > if (test_bit(BR_FDB_LOCAL, &dst->flags))
> > return br_pass_frame_up(skb, false);
> >
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > if (local_rcv)
> > return br_pass_frame_up(skb, promisc);
> >
> >>> - if (!(brdev->flags & IFF_PROMISC) &&
> >>> - !br_allowed_egress(vg, skb)) {
> >>> + if (!promisc && !br_allowed_egress(vg, skb)) {
> >
> > Then, this is not equivalent.
> >
> > But, why is br_allowed_egress() skipped depending on brdev->flags & IFF_PROMISC?
> >
> > I mean, how does this combination work?
> >
> > BR_FDB_LOCAL dst AND (brdev->flags & IFF_PROMISC) AND BR_INPUT_SKB_CB(skb)->vlan_filtered
>
> The bridge should see all packets come up if promisc flag is set, regardless if the
> vlan exists or not, so br_allowed_egress() is skipped entirely.
I see, but does this defeat the purpose of the vlan bridge filtering
for BR_FDB_LOCAL dst while IFF_PROMISC is on?
> As I commented separately the patch changes that behaviour and
> suddenly these packets (BR_FDB_LOCAL fdb + promisc bit set on the
> bridge dev) won't be sent up to the bridge.
I agree this proposed patch does not improve the situation.
> I think the current code should stay as-is, but wanted to get your
> opinion if we can still hit the warning that was fixed because we
> can still hit that code with a BR_FDB_LOCAL dst with promisc flag
> set and the promisc flag will be == false in that case.
Packets with BR_FDB_LOCAL dst are unicast packets but
skb->pkt_type != PACKET_HOST?
