lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [E1000-devel] [PATCH 1/2] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous mode control
Date
> Subject: RE: [E1000-devel] [PATCH 1/2] if_link: Add VF multicast promiscuous mode control
>
> From: Hiroshi Shimamoto
> > My concern is what is the real issue that VF multicast promiscuous mode can cause.
> > I think there is the 4k entries to filter multicast address, and the current ixgbe/ixgbevf
> > can turn all bits on from VM. That is almost same as enabling multicast promiscuous mode.
> > I mean that we can receive all multicast addresses by an onerous operation in untrusted VM.
> > I think we should clarify what is real security issue in this context.
>
> If you are worried about passing un-enabled multicasts to users then
> what about doing a software hash of received multicasts and checking
> against an actual list of multicasts enabled for that hash entry.
> Under normal conditions there is likely to be only a single address to check.
>
> It may (or may not) be best to use the same hash as any hashing hardware
> filter uses.

thanks for the comment. But I don't think that is the point.

I guess, introducing VF multicast promiscuous mode seems to add new privilege
to peek every multicast packet in VM and that doesn't look good.
On the other hand, I think that there has been the same privilege in the current
ixgbe/ixgbevf implementation already. Or I'm reading the code wrongly.
I'd like to clarify what is the issue of allowing to receive all multicast packets.

thanks,
Hiroshi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-21 13:41    [W:0.761 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site