| 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 05:51:14 +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
Sorry for reply this message again.
On November 4, 2021 10:31 AM, Baowen Zheng wrote:
>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?
After consideration, I think it is better to separate CLS flags and ACT flags.
So we will pass CLS flags as a separate flags, thanks.
>>
>>> 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