Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: mac-auth/MAB implementation

[Hans Schultz]

On tor, mar 10, 2022 at 18:05, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 04:51:15PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
>> On tor, mar 10, 2022 at 17:07, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 04:00:52PM +0100, Hans Schultz wrote:
>> >> >> +	brport = dsa_port_to_bridge_port(dp);
>> >> >
>> >> > Since this is threaded interrupt context, I suppose it could race with
>> >> > dsa_port_bridge_leave(). So it is best to check whether "brport" is NULL
>> >> > or not.
>> >> >
>> >> Would something like:
>> >> if (dsa_is_unused_port(chip->ds, port))
>> >>         return -ENODATA;
>> >> 
>> >> be appropriate and sufficient for that?
>> >
>> > static inline
>> > struct net_device *dsa_port_to_bridge_port(const struct dsa_port *dp)
>> > {
>> > 	if (!dp->bridge)
>> > 		return NULL;
>> >
>> > 	if (dp->lag)
>> > 		return dp->lag->dev;
>> > 	else if (dp->hsr_dev)
>> > 		return dp->hsr_dev;
>> >
>> > 	return dp->slave;
>> > }
>> >
>> > Notice the "dp->bridge" check. The assignments are in dsa_port_bridge_create()
>> > and in dsa_port_bridge_destroy(). These functions assume rtnl_mutex protection.
>> > The question was how do you serialize with that, and why do you assume
>> > that dsa_port_to_bridge_port() returns non-NULL.
>> >
>> > So no, dsa_is_unused_port() would do absolutely nothing to help.
>> 
>> I was thinking in indirect terms (dangerous I know :-).
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "indirect terms". An "unused
> port" is one with 'status = "disabled";' in the device tree. I would
> expect that you don't need to handle FDB entries towards such a port!
>

Right!

> You have a port receiving traffic with an unknown {MAC SA, VID}.
> When the port is configured as locked by the bridge, this traffic will
> generate ATU miss interrupts. These will be handled in an interrupt
> thread that is scheduled to be handled some time in the future.
> In between the moment when the packet is received and the moment when
> the interrupt thread runs, a user could run "ip link set lan0 nomaster".
> Then the interrupt thread would notify the bridge about these entries,
> point during which a bridge port no longer exists => NULL pointer dereference.
> By taking the rtnl_lock() and then checking whether dsa_port_to_bridge_port()
> is NULL, you figure out whether the interrupt handler ran completely
> before dsa_port_bridge_leave(), or completely after dsa_port_bridge_leave().
>
>> 
>> But wrt the nl lock, I wonder when other threads could pull the carpet
>> away under this, and so I might have to wait till after the last call
>> (mv88e6xxx_g1_atu_loadpurge) to free the nl lock?
>
> That might make sense. It means: if the user runs "ip link set lan0 nomaster",
> wait until I've notified the bridge and installed the entry to my own
> ATU, so that they're in sync. Then, del_nbp() -> br_fdb_delete_by_port()
> would come in, find that entry notified by us (I think!) and remove it.
> If you call rtnl_unlock() too early, it might be possible that the ATU
> entry remains lingering (unless I'm missing some subtle implicit
> serialization based on mv88e6xxx_reg_lock() or similar).

I will go with releasing the lock after the last call. I think that
should be okay.