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

Message-ID: <20230301122711.2eqlbjplitrpktdj@skbuf>
Date:   Wed, 1 Mar 2023 14:27:11 +0200
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.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

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>

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