linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: Fix port police support using tc-matchall

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20230301194930.44g55mljrw3qicsi@soft-dev3-1>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 20:49:30 +0100
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
        <pabeni@...hat.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: lan966x: Fix port police support using
 tc-matchall

The 03/01/2023 14:27, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

Hi Vladimir,

> 
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:47:42PM +0100, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > When the police was removed from the port, then it was trying to
> > remove the police from the police id and not from the actual
> > police index.
> > The police id represents the id of the police and police index
> > represents the position in HW where the police is situated.
> > The port police id can be any number while the port police index
> > is a number based on the port chip port.
> > Fix this by deleting the police from HW that is situated at the
> > police index and not police id.
> >
> > Fixes: 5390334b59a3 ("net: lan966x: Add port police support using tc-matchall")
> > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c
> > index a9aec900d608d..7d66fe75cd3bf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_police.c
> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ int lan966x_police_port_del(struct lan966x_port *port,
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >       }
> >
> > -     err = lan966x_police_del(port, port->tc.police_id);
> > +     err = lan966x_police_del(port, POL_IDX_PORT + port->chip_port);
> >       if (err) {
> >               NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
> >                                  "Failed to add policer to port");
> > --
> > 2.38.0
> >
> 
> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>

Thanks for the review.

> 
> but the extack message is also wrong; it says it failed to add the
> policer, when the operation that failed was a deletion.

Good catch, but this err path will never be hit as the function
lan966x_police_del always returns 0.

I am planning to send a patch when the net-next gets open to
actually change the return type of the function 'lan966x_police_del' and
then the extack message will be removed.


-- 
/Horatiu