| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 02:30:46 +0000
From: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Baowen Zheng <notifications@...hub.com>,
Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>,
oss-drivers <oss-drivers@...igine.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC/PATCH net-next v3 8/8] flow_offload: validate flags of
filter and actions
Thanks for your review and sorry for delay in responding.
On October 30, 2021 2:01 AM, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>On Thu 28 Oct 2021 at 14:06, 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.
>>
>> We need to prevent adding filter with flags conflicts with its actions.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Louis Peens <louis.peens@...igine.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
>> ---
>> net/sched/cls_api.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> net/sched/cls_flower.c | 3 ++-
>> net/sched/cls_matchall.c | 4 ++--
>> net/sched/cls_u32.c | 7 ++++---
>> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_api.c b/net/sched/cls_api.c index
>> 351d93988b8b..80647da9713a 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_api.c
>> @@ -3025,6 +3025,29 @@ void tcf_exts_destroy(struct tcf_exts *exts) }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_exts_destroy);
>>
>> +static bool tcf_exts_validate_actions(const struct tcf_exts *exts,
>> +u32 flags) { #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
>> + bool skip_sw = tc_skip_sw(flags);
>> + bool skip_hw = tc_skip_hw(flags);
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!(skip_sw | skip_hw))
>> + return true;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < exts->nr_actions; i++) {
>> + struct tc_action *a = exts->actions[i];
>> +
>> + if ((skip_sw && tc_act_skip_hw(a->tcfa_flags)) ||
>> + (skip_hw && tc_act_skip_sw(a->tcfa_flags)))
>> + return false;
>> + }
>> + return true;
>> +#else
>> + return true;
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>
>I know Jamal suggested to have skip_sw for actions, but it complicates the
>code and I'm still not entirely understand why it is necessary.
>After all, action can only get applied to a packet if the packet has been
>matched by some filter and filters already have skip sw/hw controls. Forgoing
>action skip_sw flag would:
>
>- Alleviate the need to validate that filter and action flags are compatible.
>(trying to offload filter that points to existing skip_hw action would just fail
>because the driver wouldn't find the action with provided id in its tables)
>
>- Remove the need to add more conditionals into TC software data path in
>patch 4.
>
>WDYT?
As we discussed with Jamal, we will keep the flag of skip_sw and we need to make
exactly match for the actions with flags and the filter specific action with index.
>
>> int tcf_exts_validate(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, struct nlattr **tb,
>> struct nlattr *rate_tlv, struct tcf_exts *exts,
>> u32 flags, struct netlink_ext_ack *extack) @@ -3066,6
>+3089,9
>> @@ int tcf_exts_validate(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, struct nlattr
>**tb,
>> return err;
>> exts->nr_actions = err;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (!tcf_exts_validate_actions(exts, flags))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> #else
>> if ((exts->action && tb[exts->action]) || diff --git
>> a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c index
>> eb6345a027e1..55f89f0e393e 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
>> @@ -2035,7 +2035,8 @@ static int fl_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>*in_skb,
>> }
>>
>> err = fl_set_parms(net, tp, fnew, mask, base, tb, tca[TCA_RATE],
>> - tp->chain->tmplt_priv, flags, extack);
>> + tp->chain->tmplt_priv, flags | fnew->flags,
>> + extack);
>
>Aren't you or-ing flags from two different ranges (TCA_CLS_FLAGS_* and
>TCA_ACT_FLAGS_*) that map to same bits, or am I missing something? This
>isn't explained in commit message so it is hard for me to understand the idea
>here.
Yes, as you said we use TCA_CLS_FLAGS_* or TCA_ACT_FLAGS_* flags to validate the action flags.
As you know, the TCA_ACT_FLAGS_* in flags are system flags(in high 16 bits) and the TCA_CLS_FLAGS_*
are user flags(in low 16 bits), so they will not be conflict.
But I think you suggestion also makes sense to us, do you think we need to pass a single filter flag
to make the process more clear?
>
>> if (err)
>> goto errout;
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_matchall.c b/net/sched/cls_matchall.c index
>> 24f0046ce0b3..00b76fbc1dce 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/cls_matchall.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_matchall.c
>> @@ -226,8 +226,8 @@ static int mall_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>*in_skb,
>> goto err_alloc_percpu;
>> }
>>
>> - err = mall_set_parms(net, tp, new, base, tb, tca[TCA_RATE], flags,
>> - extack);
>> + err = mall_set_parms(net, tp, new, base, tb, tca[TCA_RATE],
>> + flags | new->flags, extack);
>> if (err)
>> goto err_set_parms;
>>
>> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_u32.c b/net/sched/cls_u32.c index
>> 4272814487f0..fc670cc45122 100644
>> --- a/net/sched/cls_u32.c
>> +++ b/net/sched/cls_u32.c
>> @@ -895,7 +895,8 @@ static int u32_change(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>*in_skb,
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> err = u32_set_parms(net, tp, base, new, tb,
>> - tca[TCA_RATE], flags, extack);
>> + tca[TCA_RATE], flags | new->flags,
>> + extack);
>>
>> if (err) {
>> u32_destroy_key(new, false);
>> @@ -1060,8 +1061,8 @@ static int u32_change(struct net *net, struct
>sk_buff *in_skb,
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> - err = u32_set_parms(net, tp, base, n, tb, tca[TCA_RATE], flags,
>> - extack);
>> + err = u32_set_parms(net, tp, base, n, tb, tca[TCA_RATE],
>> + flags | n->flags, extack);
>> if (err == 0) {
>> struct tc_u_knode __rcu **ins;
>> struct tc_u_knode *pins;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists