netdev - RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 4/5] bridge: vlan lwt and dst

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]

Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:22:00 +0000
From:   "Rosen, Rami" <rami.rosen@...el.com>
To:     Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        "nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com" <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "tgraf@...g.ch" <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        "hannes@...essinduktion.org" <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        "jbenc@...hat.com" <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        "pshelar@....org" <pshelar@....org>,
        "dsa@...ulusnetworks.com" <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        "hadi@...atatu.com" <hadi@...atatu.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH net-next 4/5] bridge: vlan lwt and dst_metadata
 netlink support

Hi, Roopa,

Two minor comments:

The parameter br is not used in the br_add_vlan_tunnel_info() method, it should be removed:

+static int br_add_vlan_tunnel_info(struct net_bridge *br,
+				   struct net_bridge_port *p, int cmd,
+				   u16 vid, u32 tun_id)
+{
+	int err;
+
+	switch (cmd) {
+	case RTM_SETLINK:
+		if (p) {
+			/* if the MASTER flag is set this will act on the global
+			 * per-VLAN entry as well
+			 */
+			err = nbp_vlan_tunnel_info_add(p, vid, tun_id);
+			if (err)
+				break;
+		} else {
+			return -EINVAL;
+		}
+
+		break;
+
+	case RTM_DELLINK:
+		if (p)
+			nbp_vlan_tunnel_info_delete(p, vid);
+		else
+			return -EINVAL;
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+

The parameter br is used inside br_process_vlan_tunnel_info() only in the two 
Cases, when br_add_vlan_tunnel_info() is invoked. Since we saw earlier that it should be removed from br_add_vlan_tunnel_info(), it should also be removed from br_process_vlan_tunnel_info() as it is not needed anymore:

+static int br_process_vlan_tunnel_info(struct net_bridge *br,
+				       struct net_bridge_port *p, int cmd,
+				       struct vtunnel_info *tinfo_curr,
+				       struct vtunnel_info *tinfo_last) {
+	int t, v;
+	int err;
+
+	if (tinfo_curr->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_BEGIN) {
+		if (tinfo_last->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_BEGIN)
+			return -EINVAL;
+		memcpy(tinfo_last, tinfo_curr, sizeof(struct vtunnel_info));
+	} else if (tinfo_curr->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_END) {
+		if (!(tinfo_last->flags & BRIDGE_VLAN_INFO_RANGE_BEGIN))
+			return -EINVAL;
+		if ((tinfo_curr->vid - tinfo_last->vid) !=
+		    (tinfo_curr->tunid - tinfo_last->tunid))
+			return -EINVAL;
+		/* XXX: tun id and vlan id attrs must be same
+		 */
+		t = tinfo_last->tunid;
+		for (v = tinfo_last->vid; v <= tinfo_curr->vid; v++) {
+			err = br_add_vlan_tunnel_info(br, p, cmd,
+							  v, t);
+			if (err)
+				return err;
+			t++;
+		}
+		memset(tinfo_last, 0, sizeof(struct vtunnel_info));
+		memset(tinfo_curr, 0, sizeof(struct vtunnel_info));
+	} else {
+		err = br_add_vlan_tunnel_info(br, p, cmd,
+					      tinfo_curr->vid,
+					      tinfo_curr->tunid);
+		if (err)
+			return err;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+

Regards,
Rami Rosen