netdev - Re: [RFC/PATCH net-next v2 5/5] flow_offload: validate flags of filter and actions

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]

Date:   Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:42:23 +0200
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Baowen Zheng <notifications@...hub.com>,
        Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
        oss-drivers@...igine.com, Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH net-next v2 5/5] flow_offload: validate flags of
 filter and actions

Hi Vlad,

On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 08:45:18PM +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> 
> On Fri 01 Oct 2021 at 14:32, Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com> wrote:
> > From: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
> >
> > Add process to validate flags of filter and actions when adding
> > a tc filter.

As per comment on 2/4.

        Thanks for your review and sorry for the delay in responding.
        I believe that at this point we have addressed most of the points
        your raised and plan to post a v3 shortly.

        At this point I'd like to relay some responses from Baowen who
        has been working on addressing your review.
...

> > +/**
> > + * tcf_exts_validate_actions - check if exts actions flags are compatible with
> > + * tc filter flags
> > + * @exts: tc filter extensions handle
> > + * @flags: tc filter flags
> > + *
> > + * Returns true if exts actions flags are compatible with tc filter flags
> > + */
> > +static inline bool
> > +tcf_exts_validate_actions(const struct tcf_exts *exts, u32 flags)

...

> There is already a function named tcf_exts_validate() that is called by
> classifiers before this new one and is responsible for action validation
> and initialization. Having two similarly-named functions is confusing
> and additional call complicates classifier init implementations, which
> are already quite complex as they are. Could you perform the necessary
> validation inside existing exts initialization call chain?

Thanks, updated v3 to address this as per your suggestion.

...