Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:40:06 +0300 | From | Ido Schimmel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 6/6] selftests: forwarding: add test of MAC-Auth Bypass to locked port tests |
| |
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 # 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
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.
(*) Need to add support for this option in iproute2. Already exposed over netlink (see 'IFLA_BR_MULTI_BOOLOPT').
| |