netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 2/6] bnxt_en: do not allow wildcard matches for L2 flows

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: <CACKFLinjsSyMDSyut3h1Qyzrn0HGjaGTROdA-5U-syezEopkxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:55:11 -0700
From:   Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To:     Andy Gospodarek <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kubakici@...pl>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/6] bnxt_en: do not allow wildcard matches for L2 flows

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Andy Gospodarek
<andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 01:41:31PM -0700, Michael Chan wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Andy Gospodarek
>> <andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:43:14AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:50:14 -0400, Michael Chan wrote:
>> >> > @@ -764,6 +788,41 @@ static bool bnxt_tc_can_offload(struct bnxt *bp, struct bnxt_tc_flow *flow)
>> >> >             return false;
>> >> >     }
>> >> >
>> >> > +   /* Currently source/dest MAC cannot be partial wildcard  */
>> >> > +   if (bits_set(&flow->l2_key.smac, sizeof(flow->l2_key.smac)) &&
>> >> > +       !is_exactmatch(flow->l2_mask.smac, sizeof(flow->l2_mask.smac))) {
>> >> > +           netdev_info(bp->dev, "Wildcard match unsupported for Source MAC\n");
>> >>
>> >> This wouldn't be something to do in net, but how do you feel about
>> >> using extack for messages like this?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree 'net' would not have been the place for a change like that, but
>> > I do think that would be a good idea.  It looks like we could easily
>> > change the ndo_setup_tc to something like this:
>> >
>> >         int                     (*ndo_setup_tc)(struct net_device *dev,
>> >                                                 enum tc_setup_type type,
>> >                                                 void *type_data,
>> >                                                 struct netlink_ext_ack *extack);
>>
>> I think the extack pointer is already in the tc_cls_common_offload
>> struct inside tc_cls_flower_offload struct.
>
> True, but I'm not sure that tc_cls_common_offload is used in all cases.
> Take red_offload() as one of those.

For Flower, we know we have the extack pointer in
tc_cls_common_offload struct and we can use it to set the netlink
error message.  The point is that we don't have to modify
ndo_setup_tc().