[Bridge] [PATCH] bridge: relax BR_GROUPFWD_RESTRICTED to forward LLDP frames

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Wed, 01 Apr 2015 23:03:02 +0200
Bernhard Thaler <bernhard.thaler at wvnet.at> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 01.04.2015 21:28, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Bernhard Thaler <bernhard.thaler at wvnet.at>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 00:06:02 +0200
> > 
> >> BR_GROUPFWD_RESTRICTED bitmask restricts users from setting values to
> >> /sys/class/net/brX/bridge/group_fwd_mask that allow forwarding of
> >> some IEEE 802.1D Table 7-10 Reserved addresses:
> >>
> >> 	(MAC Control) 802.3		01-80-C2-00-00-01
> >> 	(Link Aggregation) 802.3	01-80-C2-00-00-02
> >> 	802.1AB LLDP			01-80-C2-00-00-0E
> >>
> >> Relax BR_GROUPFWD_RESTRICTED to at least forward LLDP frames and document
> >> group_fwd_mask.
> >>
> >> e.g.
> >>    echo 16384 > /sys/class/net/brX/bridge/group_fwd_mask
> >> allows to forward LLDP frames.
> >>
> >> Tested on a simple bridge setup with two interfaces. Setting group_fwd_mask
> >> as described above lets crafted LLDP frames traverse bridge.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Thaler <bernhard.thaler at wvnet.at>
> > 
> > I don't understand why we want to allow forwarding LLDP by default, it
> > specifically is the case that an 802.1D bridge is only compliant if it
> > does not forward LLDP packets.
> > 
> > We've blocked forwarding of LLDP by default for such a long time, so I
> > argue against this change from the perspective of users expecting LLDP
> > to be not forwarded by the Linux bridge by default.
> > 
> BR_GROUPFWD_DEFAULT is unchanged. By default none of the IEEE 802.1D
> Table 7-10 Reserved addresses are forwarded by the bridge (except for
> STP BPDUs if STP is turned off on the bridge device).
> For users not changing /sys/class/net/brX/bridge/group_fwd_mask there
> should be no difference to current default bridge behavior.
> 
> Only if users deliberately set group_fwd_mask to a value such as 16384
> the bridge will start to forward LLDP frames. Current
> BR_GROUPFWD_RESTRICTED value though restricts users from setting such
> values to group_fwd_mask.

If user wants to violate standards, it is probably best to let them.
Unfortunately, there is no way to put a nastygram message up in response.
There is no network version of TAINT on the kernel.

I have heard that there are people that do weird things with bridges and Openstack
that want this.