netdev - Re: [patch net-next v4 03/12] net: sched: introduce chain object to uapi

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: <20180726122745.GH2222@nanopsycho>
Date:   Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:27:45 +0200
From:   Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...ronome.com>,
        john.hurley@...ronome.com, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        mlxsw@...lanox.com, sridhar.samudrala@...el.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v4 03/12] net: sched: introduce chain object to
 uapi

Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:06:14PM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:38:39AM CEST, jiri@...nulli.us wrote:
>>Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 06:40:44PM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com wrote:
>>>On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 01:20:08AM CEST, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com wrote:
>>>> >So, you only send out notification when the last refcnt is gone.
>>>> >
>>>> >If the chain that is being deleted by a user is still used by an action,
>>>> >you return 0 or -EPERM?
>>>>
>>>> 0 and the chain stays there until the action is removed. Hmm, do you thing
>>>> that -EPERM should be returned in that case? The thing is, we have to
>>>> flush the chain in order to see the action references are there. We would
>>>> have to have 2 ref counters, one for filter, one for actions.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>>_If_ RTM_DELCHAIN does decrease the chain refcnt, then it is
>>>broken:
>>>
>>># tc chain add X... (refcnt == 1)
>>># tc action add ... goto chain X (refcnt==2)
>>># tc chain del X ... (refcnt== 1)
>>># tc chain del X ... (refcnt==0)
>>>
>>>RTM_DELCHAIN should just test if refcnt is 1, if it is, delete it,
>>>otherwise return -EPERM. This is how we handle tc standalone
>>>actions, see tcf_idr_delete_index().
>>>
>>>Yes, you might need two refcnt's here.
>>
>>Okay. Sounds good. I'm on it. 
>
>Actually, I found an issue. The action to "goto chain" might be attached
>to a filter in the same chain. That is completely legitimate usage.
>When I do:
># tc chain del X
>I expect the chain to be flushed and removed. If there is an action
>there with "goto" to the same chain, the command should be successful.
>However, I don't see any easy way to find out if the chain is referenced
>only by actions used by filters in the same chain :/
>
>Thoughts?

I'm now working on a patch that would treat empty chains implicitly
created or deleted by user that only are referenced by action as a
zombie ones. They won't be visible on dump. User won't know about them,
they would only serve as a place holder for "goto chain" actions.
I think it is reasonable. What do you think.

Will send the RFC in few hours.


>