Hi,
These are four fixes for issues which occur when using the batman-adv multicast-to-unicast feature.
The first one fixes an issue of an intermediate node snitching multicast-to-unicast packets and either dropping it or rerouting it to another node. Which causes lost packets on some and duplicate packets on other nodes.
Patches 2 to 4 fix issues when using the multicast-to-unicast conversion while BLA is enabled and some nodes are sharing the same LAN side. Here it either causes "just" duplicates in the "good" scenario (Patch 4/4). But can also cause multiple BLA backbones to send a frame from the mesh into the same, shared LAN segment (Patch 3). Or in the worst case, even reflect packets back to the host in the shared LAN, which completely confuses switches/bridges and ICMPv6 Neighbor Discovery.
Changelog v2: * Adding "Fixes:" lines
Regards, Linus
The unicast packet rerouting code makes several assumptions. For instance it assumes that there is always exactly one destination in the TT. This breaks for multicast frames in a unicast packets in several ways:
For one thing if there is actually no TT entry and the destination node was selected due to the multicast tvlv flags it announced. Then an intermediate node will wrongly drop the packet.
For another thing if there is a TT entry but the TTVN of this entry is newer than the originally addressed destination node: Then the intermediate node will wrongly redirect the packet, leading to duplicated multicast packets at a multicast listener and missing packets at other multicast listeners or multicast routers.
Fixing this by not applying the unicast packet rerouting to batman-adv unicast packets with a multicast payload. We are not able to detect a roaming multicast listener at the moment and will just continue to send the multicast frame to both the new and old destination for a while in case of such a roaming multicast listener.
Fixes: cea194d90b11 ("batman-adv: improved client announcement mechanism") Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing linus.luessing@c0d3.blue --- net/batman-adv/routing.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/routing.c b/net/batman-adv/routing.c index 27cdf5e4..9e5c71e4 100644 --- a/net/batman-adv/routing.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/routing.c @@ -826,6 +826,10 @@ static bool batadv_check_unicast_ttvn(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, vid = batadv_get_vid(skb, hdr_len); ethhdr = (struct ethhdr *)(skb->data + hdr_len);
+ /* do not reroute multicast frames in a unicast header */ + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest)) + return true; + /* check if the destination client was served by this node and it is now * roaming. In this case, it means that the node has got a ROAM_ADV * message and that it knows the new destination in the mesh to re-route
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:28:00 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
The unicast packet rerouting code makes several assumptions. For instance it assumes that there is always exactly one destination in the TT. This breaks for multicast frames in a unicast packets in several ways:
For one thing if there is actually no TT entry and the destination node was selected due to the multicast tvlv flags it announced. Then an intermediate node will wrongly drop the packet.
For another thing if there is a TT entry but the TTVN of this entry is newer than the originally addressed destination node: Then the intermediate node will wrongly redirect the packet, leading to duplicated multicast packets at a multicast listener and missing packets at other multicast listeners or multicast routers.
Fixing this by not applying the unicast packet rerouting to batman-adv unicast packets with a multicast payload. We are not able to detect a roaming multicast listener at the moment and will just continue to send the multicast frame to both the new and old destination for a while in case of such a roaming multicast listener.
Fixes: cea194d90b11 ("batman-adv: improved client announcement mechanism") Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing linus.luessing@c0d3.blue
Acked-by: Simon Wunderlich sw@simonwunderlich.de
Scenario: * Multicast frame send from a BLA backbone (multiple nodes with their bat0 bridged together, with BLA enabled)
Issue: * BLA backbone nodes receive the frame multiple times on bat0
For multicast frames received via batman-adv broadcast packets the originator of the broadcast packet is checked before decapsulating and forwarding the frame to bat0 (batadv_bla_is_backbone_gw()-> batadv_recv_bcast_packet()). If it came from a node which shares the same BLA backbone with us then it is not forwarded to bat0 to avoid a loop.
When sending a multicast frame in a non-4-address batman-adv unicast packet we are currently missing this check - and cannot do so because the batman-adv unicast packet has no originator address field.
However, we can simply fix this on the sender side by only sending the multicast frame via unicasts to interested nodes which do not share the same BLA backbone with us. This also nicely avoids some unnecessary transmissions on mesh side.
Note that no infinite loop was observed, probably because of dropping via batadv_interface_tx()->batadv_bla_tx(). However the duplicates still utterly confuse switches/bridges, ICMPv6 duplicate address detection and neighbor discovery and therefore leads to long delays before being able to establish TCP connections, for instance. And it also leads to the Linux bridge printing messages like: "br-lan: received packet on eth1 with own address as source address ..."
Fixes: 405cc1e5a81e ("batman-adv: Modified forwarding behaviour for multicast packets") Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing linus.luessing@c0d3.blue --- net/batman-adv/send.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/send.c b/net/batman-adv/send.c index d267b948..67f493c0 100644 --- a/net/batman-adv/send.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/send.c @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ #include <linux/stddef.h> #include <linux/workqueue.h>
+#include "bridge_loop_avoidance.h" #include "distributed-arp-table.h" #include "fragmentation.h" #include "gateway_client.h" @@ -343,6 +344,18 @@ int batadv_send_skb_unicast(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, if (!orig_node) goto out;
+ /* Avoid sending multicast-in-unicast packets to other BLA + * gateways - they already got the frame from the LAN side + * we share with them. + * TODO: Refactor multicast code to anticipate this, to + * avoid this check here. + */ + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest) && + batadv_bla_is_backbone_gw_orig(bat_priv, orig_node->orig, vid)) { + dev_kfree_skb(skb); + return NET_XMIT_SUCCESS; + } + switch (packet_type) { case BATADV_UNICAST: if (!batadv_send_skb_prepare_unicast(skb, orig_node))
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:28:01 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
Scenario:
- Multicast frame send from a BLA backbone (multiple nodes with their bat0 bridged together, with BLA enabled)
Issue:
- BLA backbone nodes receive the frame multiple times on bat0
For multicast frames received via batman-adv broadcast packets the originator of the broadcast packet is checked before decapsulating and forwarding the frame to bat0 (batadv_bla_is_backbone_gw()-> batadv_recv_bcast_packet()). If it came from a node which shares the same BLA backbone with us then it is not forwarded to bat0 to avoid a loop.
When sending a multicast frame in a non-4-address batman-adv unicast packet we are currently missing this check - and cannot do so because the batman-adv unicast packet has no originator address field.
However, we can simply fix this on the sender side by only sending the multicast frame via unicasts to interested nodes which do not share the same BLA backbone with us. This also nicely avoids some unnecessary transmissions on mesh side.
Note that no infinite loop was observed, probably because of dropping via batadv_interface_tx()->batadv_bla_tx(). However the duplicates still utterly confuse switches/bridges, ICMPv6 duplicate address detection and neighbor discovery and therefore leads to long delays before being able to establish TCP connections, for instance. And it also leads to the Linux bridge printing messages like: "br-lan: received packet on eth1 with own address as source address ..."
Fixes: 405cc1e5a81e ("batman-adv: Modified forwarding behaviour for multicast packets") Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing linus.luessing@c0d3.blue
net/batman-adv/send.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/send.c b/net/batman-adv/send.c index d267b948..67f493c0 100644 --- a/net/batman-adv/send.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/send.c @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ #include <linux/stddef.h> #include <linux/workqueue.h>
+#include "bridge_loop_avoidance.h" #include "distributed-arp-table.h" #include "fragmentation.h" #include "gateway_client.h" @@ -343,6 +344,18 @@ int batadv_send_skb_unicast(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, if (!orig_node) goto out;
- /* Avoid sending multicast-in-unicast packets to other BLA
* gateways - they already got the frame from the LAN side
* we share with them.
* TODO: Refactor multicast code to anticipate this, to
* avoid this check here.
*/
- if (is_multicast_ether_addr(eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest) &&
batadv_bla_is_backbone_gw_orig(bat_priv, orig_node->orig, vid)) {
dev_kfree_skb(skb);
return NET_XMIT_SUCCESS;
- }
Would it make sense to perform this check in the BATADV_UNICAST case, without checking the ethernet destination for multicast?
A backbone gateway should never send a unicast frame to another backbone gateway, regardless of multicast or not - those things should go over the backbone either way.
For 4addr unicasts, I see two cases: TT Unicasts could be dropped in the same way, as TT is ignored between backbone gateways. For DAT, there is currently no specific BLA handling for the unicast handling as far as I see, there are only some checks to make sure that ARP replies coming out of the correct backbone gateway. Since DAT is "best effort" and requests may get dropped, it's probably safe to drop this too.
That would allow us to use the same check as you have here, but dropping the check multicast ethernet address check.
Cheers, Simon
switch (packet_type) { case BATADV_UNICAST: if (!batadv_send_skb_prepare_unicast(skb, orig_node))
Scenario: * Multicast frame send from mesh to a BLA backbone (multiple nodes with their bat0 bridged together, with BLA enabled)
Issue: * BLA backbone nodes receive the frame multiple times on bat0, once from mesh->bat0 and once from each backbone_gw from LAN
For unicast, a node will send only to the best backbone gateway according to the TQ. However for multicast we currently cannot determine if multiple destination nodes share the same backbone if they don't share the same backbone with us. So we need to keep sending the unicasts to all backbone gateways and let the backbone gateways decide which one will forward the frame. We can use the CLAIM mechanism to make this decision.
One catch: The batman-adv gateway feature for DHCP packets potentially sends multicast packets in the same batman-adv unicast header as the multicast optimizations code. And we are not allowed to drop those even if we did not claim the source address of the sender, as for such packets there is only this one multicast-in-unicast packet.
How can we distinguish the two cases?
For DHCPv4: Here the broadcast MAC address is used and the multicast optimizations will never send a broadcast frame via batman-adv unicast packets (see the !is_broadcast_ether_addr() check in after the goto-send in batadv_interface_tx().
For DHCPv6: This is even trickier... DHCPv6 potentially uses non-broadcast multicast addresses. However according to RFC8415, section 7.1 it seems that currently multicast is only used from a DHCPv6 client to a DHCPv6 server, but not the other way round.
Working through the gateway feature part in batadv_interface_tx() it can be inferred that a DHCPv6 packet to a DHCP client would have been the only option for a DHCPv6 multicast packet to be sent via unicast through the gateway feature. Ergo, the newly introduced claim check won't wrongly drop a DHCPv6 packet received via the gateway feature either.
Fixes: e32470167379 ("batman-adv: check incoming packet type for bla") Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing linus.luessing@c0d3.blue --- net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c b/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c index d8c5d317..9603a6d0 100644 --- a/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c @@ -1848,7 +1848,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_rx(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, struct sk_buff *skb,
if (unlikely(atomic_read(&bat_priv->bla.num_requests))) /* don't allow broadcasts while requests are in flight */ - if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && is_bcast) + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && + (!is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) || is_bcast)) goto handled;
ether_addr_copy(search_claim.addr, ethhdr->h_source); @@ -1885,7 +1886,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_rx(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, struct sk_buff *skb, }
/* if it is a broadcast ... */ - if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && is_bcast) { + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && + (!is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) || is_bcast)) { /* ... drop it. the responsible gateway is in charge. * * We need to check is_bcast because with the gateway
On Friday, 4 September 2020 20:28:02 CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
For DHCPv6: This is even trickier... DHCPv6 potentially uses non-broadcast multicast addresses. However according to RFC8415, section 7.1 it seems that currently multicast is only used from a DHCPv6 client to a DHCPv6 server, but not the other way round.
Working through the gateway feature part in batadv_interface_tx() it can be inferred that a DHCPv6 packet to a DHCP client would have been the only option for a DHCPv6 multicast packet to be sent via unicast through the gateway feature. Ergo, the newly introduced claim check won't wrongly drop a DHCPv6 packet received via the gateway feature either.
I don't really get this part. Shouldn't it be the other way around in the code? But I haven't the time at the moment to check the code - maybe we can discuss this on Monday.
And I would also like to ask Simon to check the BLA patches before I merge them.
Kind regards, Sven
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:28:02 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
For DHCPv6: This is even trickier... DHCPv6 potentially uses non-broadcast multicast addresses. However according to RFC8415, section 7.1 it seems that currently multicast is only used from a DHCPv6 client to a DHCPv6 server, but not the other way round.
Working through the gateway feature part in batadv_interface_tx() it can be inferred that a DHCPv6 packet to a DHCP client would have been the only option for a DHCPv6 multicast packet to be sent via unicast through the gateway feature. Ergo, the newly introduced claim check won't wrongly drop a DHCPv6 packet received via the gateway feature either.
I also don't get this part. Maybe it helps if you can explain the two directions (client -> server, server -> client), and in which cases there can be multicast, and then describe why your check is sufficient?
Fixes: e32470167379 ("batman-adv: check incoming packet type for bla") Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing linus.luessing@c0d3.blue
net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c b/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c index d8c5d317..9603a6d0 100644 --- a/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c @@ -1848,7 +1848,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_rx(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, struct sk_buff *skb,
if (unlikely(atomic_read(&bat_priv->bla.num_requests))) /* don't allow broadcasts while requests are in flight */
if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && is_bcast)
if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) &&
(!is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) || is_bcast)) goto handled;
Isn't this exactly the same logic as it was before?
is_multicast == 0, is_bcast = 0 => 0 is_multicast == 0, is_bcast = 1 => 0 is_multicast == 1, is_bcast = 0 => 0 is_multicast == 1, is_bcast = 1 => 1
ether_addr_copy(search_claim.addr, ethhdr->h_source);
@@ -1885,7 +1886,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_rx(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, struct sk_buff *skb, }
/* if it is a broadcast ... */
if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && is_bcast) {
if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) &&
(!is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) || is_bcast)) { /* ... drop it. the responsible gateway is in charge. * * We need to check is_bcast because with the gateway
Same here.
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:06:06PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
if (unlikely(atomic_read(&bat_priv->bla.num_requests))) /* don't allow broadcasts while requests are in flight */
if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && is_bcast)
if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) &&
(!is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) || is_bcast)) goto handled;
Isn't this exactly the same logic as it was before?
is_multicast == 0, is_bcast = 0 => 0 is_multicast == 0, is_bcast = 1 => 0 is_multicast == 1, is_bcast = 0 => 0 is_multicast == 1, is_bcast = 1 => 1
The 3rd one should be different. Note that "is_bcast" is not the same as is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest). The former refers to the batman-adv packet header, while the latter refers to the destination MAC of the inner ethernet header.
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:28:02 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
For DHCPv6: This is even trickier... DHCPv6 potentially uses non-broadcast multicast addresses. However according to RFC8415, section 7.1 it seems that currently multicast is only used from a DHCPv6 client to a DHCPv6 server, but not the other way round.
Working through the gateway feature part in batadv_interface_tx() it can be inferred that a DHCPv6 packet to a DHCP client would have been the only option for a DHCPv6 multicast packet to be sent via unicast through the gateway feature. Ergo, the newly introduced claim check won't wrongly drop a DHCPv6 packet received via the gateway feature either.
I also don't get this part. Maybe it helps if you can explain the two directions (client -> server, server -> client), and in which cases there can be multicast, and then describe why your check is sufficient?
Hm, actually it's not just the description that is messed up, I think. server->client is ok, but client->server isn't...
* DHCPv6 server -> client: -> Easy, according to RFC8415, section 7.1 this would always be unicast. So neither the Gateway nor Multicast feature would touch it.
* DHCPv6 client -> server: -> Actually both the gateway feature and multicast feature can use it. I misread the code...
I'm a bit uncertain how to solve the latter now... I see no way to distinguish gw vs. mcast feature as is. We also have no flags or reserved space in the batadv_unicast_packet available to make them distinguishable.
So the only solution I could think of for now is excluding DHCPv6 from multicast feature in TX of the originator... (in batadv_mcast_forw_mode_check_ipv6(), adding excludes for ff02::1:2 and ff05::1:3).
(Even though having the multicast feature handling it would have been nice(r) as it'd work without needing a user to set and maintain the gateway mode properly.)
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 04:53:57PM +0200, Linus Lüssing wrote:
So the only solution I could think of for now is excluding DHCPv6 from multicast feature in TX of the originator... (in batadv_mcast_forw_mode_check_ipv6(), adding excludes for ff02::1:2 and ff05::1:3).
And there is also no way for a random node in the mesh to figure out if two or more other nodes share the same LAN via BLA, right?
That would have been the other option, to avoid sending a multicast-in-unicast packet via the multicast feature to multiple such nodes in the first place.
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 04:53:57PM +0200, Linus Lüssing wrote:
So the only solution I could think of for now is excluding DHCPv6 from multicast feature in TX of the originator... (in batadv_mcast_forw_mode_check_ipv6(), adding excludes for ff02::1:2 and ff05::1:3).
Ah, wait, we could distinguish them. Just noticed that the gateway feature uses a unicast 4 address header, while the multicast feature uses a simple, 3 address unicast header.
That should work. But might look a bit hacky. And would disallow using a 4 address header from the multicast feature in the future.
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:53:57 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
The 3rd one should be different. Note that "is_bcast" is not the same as is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest). The former refers to the batman-adv packet header, while the latter refers to the destination MAC of the inner ethernet header.
Oh right, one is is_multicast() and the other one is_broadcast().
This part definitely needs either some comment or, even better, split into multiple conditions checks or a helper function which makes it clear.
I've stared on this for a couple of minutes, but we should be able to review that kind of code faster. Maybe it's just me, but I think this can be improved. :P
Cheers, Simon
Scenario: * Multicast frame send from BLA backbone gateways (multiple nodes with their bat0 bridged together, with BLA enabled) sharing the same LAN to nodes in the mesh
Issue: * Nodes receive the frame multiple times on bat0 from the mesh, once from each foreign BLA backbone gateway which shares the same LAN with another
For multicast frames via batman-adv broadcast packets coming from the same BLA backbone but from different backbone gateways duplicates are currently detected via a CRC history of previously received packets.
However this CRC so far was not performed for multicast frames received via batman-adv unicast packets. Fixing this by appyling the same check for such packets, too.
Room for improvements in the future: Ideally we would introduce the possibility to not only claim a client, but a complete originator, too. This would allow us to only send a multicast-in-unicast packet from a BLA backbone gateway claiming the node and by that avoid potential redundant transmissions in the first place.
Fixes: e5cf86d30a9b ("batman-adv: add broadcast duplicate check") Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing linus.luessing@c0d3.blue --- net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c b/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c index 9603a6d0..c509a83d 100644 --- a/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c +++ b/net/batman-adv/bridge_loop_avoidance.c @@ -1580,14 +1580,16 @@ int batadv_bla_init(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv) }
/** - * batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist() - Check if a frame is in the broadcast dup. + * batadv_bla_check_duplist() - Check if a frame is in the broadcast dup. * @bat_priv: the bat priv with all the soft interface information - * @skb: contains the bcast_packet to be checked - * - * check if it is on our broadcast list. Another gateway might - * have sent the same packet because it is connected to the same backbone, - * so we have to remove this duplicate. + * @skb: contains the multicast packet to be checked + * @payload_ptr: pointer to position inside the head buffer of the skb + * marking the start of the data to be CRC'ed * + * Check if it is on our broadcast list. Another gateway might have sent the + * same packet because it is connected to the same backbone, so we have to + * remove this duplicate. + * This is performed by checking the CRC, which will tell us * with a good chance that it is the same packet. If it is furthermore * sent by another host, drop it. We allow equal packets from @@ -1595,19 +1597,17 @@ int batadv_bla_init(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv) * * Return: true if a packet is in the duplicate list, false otherwise. */ -bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, - struct sk_buff *skb) +static bool batadv_bla_check_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, + struct sk_buff *skb, u8 *payload_ptr, + const u8 *orig) { + struct batadv_bcast_duplist_entry *entry; + bool ret = false; int i, curr; __be32 crc; - struct batadv_bcast_packet *bcast_packet; - struct batadv_bcast_duplist_entry *entry; - bool ret = false; - - bcast_packet = (struct batadv_bcast_packet *)skb->data;
/* calculate the crc ... */ - crc = batadv_skb_crc32(skb, (u8 *)(bcast_packet + 1)); + crc = batadv_skb_crc32(skb, payload_ptr);
spin_lock_bh(&bat_priv->bla.bcast_duplist_lock);
@@ -1626,7 +1626,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, if (entry->crc != crc) continue;
- if (batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, bcast_packet->orig)) + if (!is_zero_ether_addr(entry->orig) && + batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, orig)) continue;
/* this entry seems to match: same crc, not too old, @@ -1643,7 +1644,7 @@ bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, entry = &bat_priv->bla.bcast_duplist[curr]; entry->crc = crc; entry->entrytime = jiffies; - ether_addr_copy(entry->orig, bcast_packet->orig); + ether_addr_copy(entry->orig, orig); bat_priv->bla.bcast_duplist_curr = curr;
out: @@ -1652,6 +1653,52 @@ bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, return ret; }
+/** + * batadv_bla_check_ucast_duplist() - Check if a frame is in the broadcast dup. + * @bat_priv: the bat priv with all the soft interface information + * @skb: contains the multicast packet to be checked, decapsulated from a + * unicast_packet + * + * Check if it is on our broadcast list. Another gateway might have sent the + * same packet because it is connected to the same backbone, so we have to + * remove this duplicate. + * + * Return: true if a packet is in the duplicate list, false otherwise. + */ +static bool batadv_bla_check_ucast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, + struct sk_buff *skb) +{ + u8 orig[ETH_ALEN]; + + eth_zero_addr(orig); + + return batadv_bla_check_duplist(bat_priv, skb, (u8 *)skb->data, orig); +} + +/** + * batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist() - Check if a frame is in the broadcast dup. + * @bat_priv: the bat priv with all the soft interface information + * @skb: contains the bcast_packet to be checked + * + * Check if it is on our broadcast list. Another gateway might have sent the + * same packet because it is connected to the same backbone, so we have to + * remove this duplicate. + * + * Return: true if a packet is in the duplicate list, false otherwise. + */ +bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, + struct sk_buff *skb) +{ + struct batadv_bcast_packet *bcast_packet; + u8 *payload_ptr; + + bcast_packet = (struct batadv_bcast_packet *)skb->data; + payload_ptr = (u8 *)(bcast_packet + 1); + + return batadv_bla_check_duplist(bat_priv, skb, payload_ptr, + bcast_packet->orig); +} + /** * batadv_bla_is_backbone_gw_orig() - Check if the originator is a gateway for * the VLAN identified by vid. @@ -1852,6 +1899,13 @@ bool batadv_bla_rx(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, struct sk_buff *skb, (!is_broadcast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) || is_bcast)) goto handled;
+ /* potential duplicates from foreign BLA backbone gateways via + * multicast-in-unicast packets + */ + if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ethhdr->h_dest) && !is_bcast && + batadv_bla_check_ucast_duplist(bat_priv, skb)) + goto handled; + ether_addr_copy(search_claim.addr, ethhdr->h_source); search_claim.vid = vid; claim = batadv_claim_hash_find(bat_priv, &search_claim);
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:28:03 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
@@ -1626,7 +1626,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, if (entry->crc != crc) continue;
if (batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, bcast_packet->orig))
if (!is_zero_ether_addr(entry->orig) &&
batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, orig)) continue; /* this entry seems to match: same crc, not too old,
Shouldn't this check also be skipped if the orig parameter is a zero mac address? i.e.:
if (!is_zero_ether_addr(orig)) { if (!is_zero_ether_addr(entry->orig) && batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, orig)) continue; }
Whether orig is zero can probably be checked once before the loop and the result cached in a bool variable.
A little comment may also be nice to explain this part a bit better.
The rest looks good.
Cheers, Simon
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:28:03 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
@@ -1626,7 +1626,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, if (entry->crc != crc) continue;
if (batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, bcast_packet->orig))
if (!is_zero_ether_addr(entry->orig) &&
batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, orig)) continue; /* this entry seems to match: same crc, not too old,
Shouldn't this check also be skipped if the orig parameter is a zero mac address? i.e.:
if (!is_zero_ether_addr(orig)) { if (!is_zero_ether_addr(entry->orig) && batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, orig)) continue; }
Would be redundant. If entry->orig is non-zero and the compare_eth() says they are equal, then orig must also be non-zero.
I initially wanted to leave the code as unchanged as possible for net / maint. Should I do the restructuring to enhance readability, with the bool in this patch or in additional patch for net-next?
On Wednesday, September 9, 2020 5:27:56 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 02:15:51PM +0200, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
On Friday, September 4, 2020 8:28:03 PM CEST Linus Lüssing wrote:
@@ -1626,7 +1626,8 @@ bool batadv_bla_check_bcast_duplist(struct batadv_priv *bat_priv, if (entry->crc != crc)
continue;
if (batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, bcast_packet->orig))
if (!is_zero_ether_addr(entry->orig) &&
batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig, orig)) continue; /* this entry seems to match: same crc, not too old,
Shouldn't this check also be skipped if the orig parameter is a zero mac address? i.e.:
if (!is_zero_ether_addr(orig)) {
if (!is_zero_ether_addr(entry->orig) && batadv_compare_eth(entry->orig,
orig))
continue;
}
Would be redundant. If entry->orig is non-zero and the compare_eth() says they are equal, then orig must also be non-zero.
OK good point, that's not really obvious (at least to me).
I initially wanted to leave the code as unchanged as possible for net / maint. Should I do the restructuring to enhance readability, with the bool in this patch or in additional patch for net-next?
Personally, I would prefer having a bit more readability or verbose comments in front of those kind of logic if statements. Or avoid those logic connections and have multiple "ifs" in a row where possible to enhance readbility.
This patch is pretty heavy already as is, adding a bool doesn't make a big difference IMHO.
Cheers, Simon
b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.org