netdev - Re: [patch net-next v3 03/10] flow_offload: check for basic action hw stats type

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: <20200306112851.2dc630e7@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN>
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:28:51 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        leon@...nel.org, michael.chan@...adcom.com, vishal@...lsio.com,
        jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, idosch@...lanox.com,
        aelior@...vell.com, peppe.cavallaro@...com,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, jhs@...atatu.com,
        xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, pablo@...filter.org,
        ecree@...arflare.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [patch net-next v3 03/10] flow_offload: check for basic action
 hw stats type

On Fri,  6 Mar 2020 14:28:49 +0100 Jiri Pirko wrote:
> @@ -251,6 +252,66 @@ static inline bool flow_offload_has_one_action(const struct flow_action *action)
>  	return action->num_entries == 1;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool
> +flow_action_mixed_hw_stats_types_check(const struct flow_action *action,
> +				       struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> +{
> +	const struct flow_action_entry *action_entry;
> +	u8 uninitialized_var(last_hw_stats_type);

Perhaps just initialize before the loop to action 0 and start loop 
from 1?

> +	int i;
> +
> +	if (flow_offload_has_one_action(action))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < action->num_entries; i++) {
> +		action_entry = &action->entries[0];

s/0/i/ ?

> +		if (i && action_entry->hw_stats_type != last_hw_stats_type) {
> +			NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Mixing HW stats types for actions is not supported");
> +			return false;
> +		}
> +		last_hw_stats_type = action_entry->hw_stats_type;
> +	}
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
> +static inline const struct flow_action_entry *
> +flow_action_first_entry_get(const struct flow_action *action)
> +{
> +	WARN_ON(!flow_action_has_entries(action));
> +	return &action->entries[0];
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool
> +flow_action_hw_stats_types_check(const struct flow_action *action,
> +				 struct netlink_ext_ack *extack,
> +				 u8 allowed_hw_stats_type)
> +{
> +	const struct flow_action_entry *action_entry;
> +
> +	if (!flow_action_has_entries(action))
> +		return true;
> +	if (!flow_action_mixed_hw_stats_types_check(action, extack))
> +		return false;
> +	action_entry = flow_action_first_entry_get(action);
> +	if (!allowed_hw_stats_type &&
> +	    action_entry->hw_stats_type != FLOW_ACTION_HW_STATS_TYPE_ANY) {
> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Driver supports only default HW stats type \"any\"");
> +		return false;
> +	} else if (allowed_hw_stats_type &&
> +		   action_entry->hw_stats_type != allowed_hw_stats_type) {

Should this be an logical 'and' if we're doing it the bitfield way?

> +		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Driver does not support selected HW stats type");
> +		return false;
> +	}
> +	return true;
> +}