netdev - Re: [PATCH net v4 2/2] net/mlx5e: Don't overwrite pedit action when multiple pedit used

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: <CAMDZJNVhDfmZ6OR5Pn3qDGAvq-4ZkcndoBwHWv6WCr9S-tZtuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Jan 2019 01:47:14 +0800
From:   Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
To:     Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 2/2] net/mlx5e: Don't overwrite pedit action when
 multiple pedit used

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:44 PM Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 6:18 PM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:34 PM Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:10 PM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:40 AM Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 1:06 PM <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In some case, we may use multiple pedit actions to modify packets.
> > > > > > The command shown as below: the last pedit action is effective.
> > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -2073,7 +2076,8 @@ static int alloc_mod_hdr_actions(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
> > > > > >         if (!parse_attr->mod_hdr_actions)
> > > > > >                 return -ENOMEM;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -       parse_attr->num_mod_hdr_actions = max_actions;
> > > > > > +       parse_attr->max_mod_hdr_actions = max_actions;
> > > > > > +       parse_attr->num_mod_hdr_actions = 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > why would we want to do this zeroing? what purpose does it serve?
> > > > Because we use the num_mod_hdr_actions to store the number of actions
> > > > we have parsed,
> > > > and when we alloc it, we init it 0 as default.
> > > >
> > > > > On a probably related note, I suspect that the patch broke the caching
> > > > > we do for modify header contexts, see mlx5e_attach_mod_hdr where we
> > > > > look if a given set of modify header operations already has hw modify header
> > > > > context and we use it.
> > > > >
> > > > > To test that, put two tc rules with different matching but same set of
> > > > > modify header
> > > > > (pedit) actions and see that only one modify header context is used.
> > >
> > > > The patch does't break the cache, I think that different matching may
> > > > share the same set of pedit actions.
> > >
> > > I suspect it does break it.. at [1]  we have this code for the cache lookup:
> > >
> > > num_actions  = parse_attr->num_mod_hdr_actions;
> > > [..]
> > > key.actions = parse_attr->mod_hdr_actions;
> > > key.num_actions = num_actions;
> > >
> > > hash_key = hash_mod_hdr_info(&key);
> > >
> > > so we are doing the cached insertion and lookup with
> > > parse_attr->num_mod_hdr_actions
> > > which was zeroed along the way and not accounting for the full set of
> > > pedit actions, agree?
>
> > not really, before calling the  mlx5e_attach_mod_hdr,  we have call
> > the offload_pedit_fields that will
> > update the attr->num_mod_hdr_actions that indicate  how many pedit
> > action we parsed.
>
> ok, got you, so why do we need this line
>
>  parse_attr->num_mod_hdr_actions = 0;
>
> in alloc_mod_hdr_actions()? this should be zero
> by kzalloc somewhere, it got to confuse me..
yes, should be removed
> I suggest to remove this zeroing, otherwise the patch LGTM, once you fix it
>
> Reviewed-by: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>