netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_api: Fix nooffloaddevcnt counter in indr block call success

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: <8a6bdafb-206d-b443-1cdf-e0b6be9fb1b8@ucloud.cn>
Date:   Mon, 16 Sep 2019 21:28:44 +0800
From:   wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_api: Fix nooffloaddevcnt counter in
 indr block call success


在 2019/9/16 18:28, Jiri Pirko 写道:
> Please use get_maintainers script to get list of ccs.
>
> Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:15:34PM CEST, wenxu@...oud.cn wrote:
>> From: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
>>
>> When a block bind with a dev which support indr block call(vxlan/gretap
>> device). It can bind success but with nooffloaddevcnt++. It will fail
>> when replace the hw filter in tc_setup_cb_call with skip_sw mode for
>> checkout the nooffloaddevcnt and skip_sw.
> I read this paragraph 5 times, I still don't understand :( Could you
> please re-phrase?
will do.
>> if (block->nooffloaddevcnt && err_stop)
>> 	return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>> So with this patch, if the indr block call success, it will not modify
>> the nooffloaddevcnt counter.
>>
>> Fixes: 7f76fa36754b ("net: sched: register callbacks for indirect tc block binds")
>> Signed-off-by: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
>> ---
>> net/sched/cls_api.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> index efd3cfb..8a1e3a5 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> @@ -766,10 +766,10 @@ void tc_indr_block_cb_unregister(struct net_device *dev,
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tc_indr_block_cb_unregister);
>>
>> -static void tc_indr_block_call(struct tcf_block *block, struct net_device *dev,
>> -			       struct tcf_block_ext_info *ei,
>> -			       enum flow_block_command command,
>> -			       struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> +static int tc_indr_block_call(struct tcf_block *block, struct net_device *dev,
>> +			      struct tcf_block_ext_info *ei,
>> +			      enum flow_block_command command,
>> +			      struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>> {
>> 	struct tc_indr_block_cb *indr_block_cb;
>> 	struct tc_indr_block_dev *indr_dev;
>> @@ -785,7 +785,7 @@ static void tc_indr_block_call(struct tcf_block *block, struct net_device *dev,
>>
>> 	indr_dev = tc_indr_block_dev_lookup(dev);
>> 	if (!indr_dev)
>> -		return;
>> +		return -ENOENT;
>>
>> 	indr_dev->block = command == FLOW_BLOCK_BIND ? block : NULL;
>>
>> @@ -793,7 +793,10 @@ static void tc_indr_block_call(struct tcf_block *block, struct net_device *dev,
>> 		indr_block_cb->cb(dev, indr_block_cb->cb_priv, TC_SETUP_BLOCK,
>> 				  &bo);
>>
>> -	tcf_block_setup(block, &bo);
>> +	if (list_empty(&bo.cb_list))
>> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> How is this part related to the rest of the patch?

This check the list is to make sure there is real hw-offload for the indr device( There maybe

get some wrong with indr_block_cb->cb in the driver).  It should a return err to indicate the

caller add the nooffloaddevcnt counter.

.