| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20240616162743.GJ8447@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 17:27:43 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>,
Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [RFC net-next 4/7] selftests: openvswitch: Add support
for tunnel() key.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 02:13:30PM -0400, Aaron Conole wrote:
> This will be used when setting details about the tunnel to use as
> transport. There is a difference between the ODP format between tunnel():
> the 'key' flag is not actually a flag field, so we don't support it in the
> same way that the vswitchd userspace supports displaying it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>
...
> @@ -1265,6 +1265,165 @@ class ovskey(nla):
> init=init,
> )
>
> + class ovs_key_tunnel(nla):
> + nla_flags = NLA_F_NESTED
> +
> + nla_map = (
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_ID", "be64"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV4_SRC", "ipaddr"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV4_DST", "ipaddr"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TOS", "uint8"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TTL", "uint8"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_DONT_FRAGMENT", "flag"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_CSUM", "flag"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_OAM", "flag"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_GENEVE_OPTS", "array(uint32)"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TP_SRC", "be16"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TP_DST", "be16"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_VXLAN_OPTS", "none"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_SRC", "ipaddr"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_DST", "ipaddr"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_PAD", "none"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_ERSPAN_OPTS", "none"),
> + ("OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV4_INFO_BRIDGE", "flag"),
> + )
> +
> + def parse(self, flowstr, mask=None):
> + if not flowstr.startswith("tunnel("):
> + return None, None
> +
> + k = ovskey.ovs_key_tunnel()
> + if mask is not None:
> + mask = ovskey.ovs_key_tunnel()
> +
> + flowstr = flowstr[len("tunnel("):]
> +
> + v6_address = None
> +
> + fields = [
> + ("tun_id=", r"(\d+)", int, "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_ID",
> + 0xffffffffffffffff, None, None),
> +
> + ("src=", r"([0-9a-fA-F\.]+)", str,
> + "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV4_SRC", "255.255.255.255", "0.0.0.0",
> + False),
> + ("dst=", r"([0-9a-fA-F\.]+)", str,
> + "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV4_DST", "255.255.255.255", "0.0.0.0",
> + False),
> +
> + ("ipv6_src=", r"([0-9a-fA-F:]+)", str,
> + "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_SRC",
> + "ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff", "::", True),
> + ("ipv6_dst=", r"([0-9a-fA-F:]+)", str,
> + "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_IPV6_DST",
> + "ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff", "::", True),
> +
> + ("tos=", r"(\d+)", int, "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TOS", 255, 0,
> + None),
> + ("ttl=", r"(\d+)", int, "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TTL", 255, 0,
> + None),
> +
> + ("tp_src=", r"(\d+)", int, "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TP_SRC",
> + 65535, 0, None),
> + ("tp_dst=", r"(\d+)", int, "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TP_DST",
> + 65535, 0, None),
> + ]
> +
> + forced_include = ["OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_TTL"]
> +
> + for prefix, regex, typ, attr_name, mask_val, default_val, v46_flag in fields:
> + flowstr, value = parse_extract_field(flowstr, prefix, regex, typ, False)
> + if not attr_name:
> + raise Exception("Bad list value in tunnel fields")
> +
> + if value is None and attr_name in forced_include:
> + value = default_val
> + mask_val = default_val
> +
> + if value is not None:
> + if v6_address is None and v46_flag is not None:
> + v6_address = v46_flag
By my reading, at this point v6_address will only be None if v46_flag is
not None. IF so, the condition below seems excessive.
> + if v6_address is not None and v46_flag is not None \
> + and v46_flag != v6_address:
> + raise ValueError("Cannot mix v6 and v4 addresses")
I wonder if we can instead express this as (completely untested!):
if v46_flag is not None:
if v6_address is None:
v6_address = v46_flag
if v46_flag != v6_address:
raise ValueError("Cannot mix v6 and v4 addresses")
> + k["attrs"].append([attr_name, value])
> + if mask is not None:
> + mask["attrs"].append([attr_name, mask_val])
> + else:
> + if v6_address is not None and v46_flag is not None \
> + and v46_flag != v6_address:
> + continue
> + if v6_address is None and v46_flag is not None:
> + continue
And I wonder if this is a bit easier on the eyes (also completely untested):
if v46_flag is not None:
if v6_address is None or v46_flag != v6_address:
continue
> + if mask is not None:
> + mask["attrs"].append([attr_name, default_val])
> +
> + if k["attrs"][0][0] != "OVS_TUNNEL_KEY_ATTR_ID":
> + raise ValueError("Needs a tunid set")
...
> @@ -1745,7 +1905,7 @@ class OvsVport(GenericNetlinkSocket):
> )
>
> TUNNEL_DEFAULTS = [("geneve", 6081),
> - ("vxlan", 4798)]
> + ("vxlan", 4789)]
>
> for tnl in TUNNEL_DEFAULTS:
> if ptype == tnl[0]:
As noted in my response to PATCH 1/7, I think that the
change in the hunk above belongs there rather than here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists