[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181008054515.GC32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 06:45:15 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: jhs@...atatu.com, jiri@...nulli.us, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/11] net: sched: cls_u32 Various improvements
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 09:25:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 12:38:00 -0400
>
> > Various improvements from Al.
>
> Please submit changes that actually are compile tested:
>
> CC [M] net/sched/cls_u32.o
> net/sched/cls_u32.c: In function ‘u32_delete’:
> net/sched/cls_u32.c:674:6: error: ‘root_ht’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘root_user’?
> if (root_ht == ht) {
> ^~~~~~~
> root_user
> net/sched/cls_u32.c:674:6: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> net/sched/cls_u32.c: In function ‘u32_set_parms’:
> net/sched/cls_u32.c:746:15: error: ‘struct tc_u_hnode’ has no member named ‘is_root’
> if (ht_down->is_root) {
> ^~
Er... Both are due to missing in the very beginning of the series (well, on
top of "net: sched: cls_u32: fix hnode refcounting") commit
Author: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon Sep 3 14:39:02 2018 -0400
net: sched: cls_u32: mark root hnode explicitly
... and produce consistent error on attempt to delete such.
Existing check in u32_delete() is inconsistent - after
tc qdisc add dev eth0 ingress
tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 100 handle 1: u32 divisor 1
tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 200 handle 2: u32 divisor 1
both
tc filter delete dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 100 handle 801: u32
and
tc filter delete dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 100 handle 800: u32
will fail (at least with refcounting fixes), but the former will complain
about an attempt to remove a busy table, while the latter will recognize
it as root and yield "Not allowed to delete root node" instead.
The problem with the existing check is that several tcf_proto instances might
share the same tp->data and handle-to-hnode lookup will be the same for all
of them. So comparing an hnode to be deleted with tp->root won't catch the
case when one tp is used to try deleting the root of another. Solution is
trivial - mark the root hnodes explicitly upon allocation and check for that.
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
diff --git a/net/sched/cls_u32.c b/net/sched/cls_u32.c
index b2c3406a2cf2..c4782aa808c7 100644
--- a/net/sched/cls_u32.c
+++ b/net/sched/cls_u32.c
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ struct tc_u_hnode {
int refcnt;
unsigned int divisor;
struct idr handle_idr;
+ bool is_root;
struct rcu_head rcu;
u32 flags;
/* The 'ht' field MUST be the last field in structure to allow for
@@ -377,6 +378,7 @@ static int u32_init(struct tcf_proto *tp)
root_ht->refcnt++;
root_ht->handle = tp_c ? gen_new_htid(tp_c, root_ht) : 0x80000000;
root_ht->prio = tp->prio;
+ root_ht->is_root = true;
idr_init(&root_ht->handle_idr);
if (tp_c == NULL) {
@@ -693,7 +695,7 @@ static int u32_delete(struct tcf_proto *tp, void *arg, bool *last,
goto out;
}
- if (root_ht == ht) {
+ if (ht->is_root) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Not allowed to delete root node");
return -EINVAL;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists