Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 20 May 2025 23:44:58 +0100
From:      Lexi Winter <ivy@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: HEADS UP: 15.0-CURRENT, =?utf-8?Q?chan?= =?utf-8?Q?ge_to_bridge=284=29_might_break_some_network_configurations_wit?= =?utf-8?B?aCDigJxJbnZhbGlkIGFyZ3VtZW504oCd?=
Message-ID:  <aC0F6lNpXkkvScQU@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org>
In-Reply-To: <7a54f675-3c39-43a7-8e06-f63857c3bf91@redbarn.org>
References:  <aCsJDjfCNk5pA59c@ragweed.eden.le-fay.org> <7a54f675-3c39-43a7-8e06-f63857c3bf91@redbarn.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

[-- Attachment #1 --]
Paul Vixie:
> If we move all member ifaddrs to the bridge itself, then will arp
> requests always have to be broadcast on all member interfaces? If so
> this is intolerable from a security perspective, a complete
> nonstarter.

i believe Patrick Hausen already answered your original question, but to
add to that: if you are intending to restrict bridge traffic based on
member port and/or MAC address, you can do this by enabling one or more
of the bridge pfil_* sysctls, and possibly also ipfw_arp which sounds
like it might be relevant to your use-case.

if you only want to force a specific MAC address to a specific member
port, you can do this without pfil by defining static host entries via:
	% ifconfig bridge0 static <interface> <address>

relying on the kernel to have a specific behaviour for ARP packets sent
or received on a specific member interface (rather than the bridge
itself) is not the right way to do this since if_bridge(4) has never
guaranteed that this will work in any particular way.  this *will* end
up biting you one day even if you enable the member_ifaddrs sysctl for
now.

if your use-case is not covered by any of these sysctls, i would be
interested to know more about it so we can support it in bridge.
that said, speaking generally, i think that for this sort of complex,
security-sensitive network topology, routed access is a better solution
than layer 2 access.

[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYKAB0WIQSyjTg96lp3RifySyn1nT63mIK/YAUCaC0F6QAKCRD1nT63mIK/
YNL7AQCd4ae3lbD7OYeS11l3zbVVFd2m7z7zdyeYyJD19WwGaQEAyTdyWxhR36nW
JLXoWnMQtrFfMCIKU2nAEiIa8zlMgwk=
=YQzQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aC0F6lNpXkkvScQU>