linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 09/10] selftests/tc-testing: test that taprio can only be attached as root

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: <20230807190602.pvforrful3zmqiv6@skbuf>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:06:02 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
To:     Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>,
        Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>,
        Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
        Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>,
        Maxim Georgiev <glipus@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 09/10] selftests/tc-testing: test that taprio
 can only be attached as root

On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote:
> Hmmm, I think that this test discovered another bug (perhaps even two).
> When it fails here's the json I get (edited for clarity):
> 
> [{"kind":"taprio","handle":"8001:","root":true,"refcnt":9,
>   "options":{
>         "tc":0,
>         "map":[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],
>         "queues":[],
>         "clockid":"TAI",
>         "base_time":0,
>         "cycle_time":0,
>         "cycle_time_extension":0,
>         {
>                 "base_time":0,
>                 "cycle_time":20000000,
>                 "cycle_time_extension":0,
>                 "schedule":[{"index":0,"cmd":"S","gatemask":"0xff","interval":20000000}]
>         }}}]
> 
> Thinking out loud: If I am reading this right, there's no "oper"
> schedule, only an "admin" schedule. So the first bug is probably a
> taprio bug when deciding if it should create an "open" vs. "admin"
> schedule.
> 
> The second bug seems to be in the way that q_taprio in iproute2
> handles the admin schedule, is just an object inside another, which
> seems to be invalid.
> 
> Does it make sense?

Yes, it makes sense, thanks. I've sent some iproute2 patches that fix
the user space issues, and I'll soon send a v4 which takes into
consideration the fact that the admin schedule may not become
operational right away.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230807160827.4087483-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/