linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: policy: Remove obsolete WARN while xfrm policy inserting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1d3596fb-c7e3-16c9-f48f-fe58e9a2569a@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 22:05:32 +0800
From:   Yuehaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
CC:     <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
        <kuba@...nel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: policy: Remove obsolete WARN while xfrm
 policy inserting

On 2020/3/28 19:23, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 08:34:43PM +0800, YueHaibing wrote:
>> Since commit 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching
>> mark and different priorities"), we allow duplicate policies with
>> different priority, this WARN is not needed any more.
> 
> Can you please describe a bit more detailed why this warning
> can't trigger anymore?

No, this warning is triggered while detect a duplicate entry in the policy list

regardless of the priority. If we insert policy like this:

policy A (mark.v = 3475289, mark.m = 0, priority = 1)	//A is inserted
policy B (mark.v = 0, mark.m = 0, priority = 0) 	//B is inserted
policy C (mark.v = 3475289, mark.m = 0, priority = 0)	//C is inserted and B is deleted
policy D (mark.v = 3475289, mark.m = 0, priority = 1)	

while finding delpol in xfrm_policy_insert_list,
first round delpol is matched C, whose priority is less than D, so contiue the loop,
then A is matched， WARN_ON is triggered.  It seems the WARN is useless.

> 
> Thanks!
> 
>