| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220630231147.GB392@debian.home>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 01:11:47 +0200
From: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
To: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, gustavoars@...nel.org,
baowen.zheng@...igine.com, boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, jhs@...atatu.com,
jiri@...nulli.us, kurt@...utronix.de, pablo@...filter.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, paulb@...dia.com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
komachi.yoshiki@...il.com, zhangkaiheb@....com,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com, wojciech.drewek@...el.com,
alexandr.lobakin@...el.com, mostrows@...thlink.net,
paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v3 2/4] net/sched: flower: Add PPPoE filter
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 04:38:57PM +0200, Marcin Szycik wrote:
> From: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
>
> Add support for PPPoE specific fields for tc-flower.
> Those fields can be provided only when protocol was set
> to ETH_P_PPP_SES. Defines, dump, load and set are being done here.
>
> Overwrite basic.n_proto only in case of PPP_IP and PPP_IPV6,
> otherwise leave it as ETH_P_PPP_SES.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com>
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h | 3 +++
> net/sched/cls_flower.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
> index 9a2ee1e39fad..a67dcd8294c9 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
> @@ -589,6 +589,9 @@ enum {
>
> TCA_FLOWER_KEY_NUM_OF_VLANS, /* u8 */
>
> + TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPPOE_SID, /* u16 */
> + TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPP_PROTO, /* be16 */
Same as for patch 1, should PPPOE_SID be a be16?
> __TCA_FLOWER_MAX,
> };
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> index dcca70144dff..f6a0bb87f869 100644
> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> #include <linux/in6.h>
> #include <linux/ip.h>
> #include <linux/mpls.h>
> +#include <linux/ppp_defs.h>
>
> #include <net/sch_generic.h>
> #include <net/pkt_cls.h>
> @@ -73,6 +74,7 @@ struct fl_flow_key {
> struct flow_dissector_key_ct ct;
> struct flow_dissector_key_hash hash;
> struct flow_dissector_key_num_of_vlans num_of_vlans;
> + struct flow_dissector_key_pppoe pppoe;
> } __aligned(BITS_PER_LONG / 8); /* Ensure that we can do comparisons as longs. */
>
> struct fl_flow_mask_range {
> @@ -714,6 +716,8 @@ static const struct nla_policy fl_policy[TCA_FLOWER_MAX + 1] = {
> [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_HASH] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_HASH_MASK] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
> [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_NUM_OF_VLANS] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
> + [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPPOE_SID] = { .type = NLA_U16 },
> + [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPP_PROTO] = { .type = NLA_U16 },
>
> };
>
> @@ -1041,6 +1045,32 @@ static void fl_set_key_vlan(struct nlattr **tb,
> }
> }
>
> +static void fl_set_key_pppoe(struct nlattr **tb,
> + struct flow_dissector_key_pppoe *key_val,
> + struct flow_dissector_key_pppoe *key_mask,
> + struct fl_flow_key *key,
> + struct fl_flow_key *mask)
> +{
> + if (tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPPOE_SID]) {
> + key_val->session_id =
> + nla_get_u16(tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPPOE_SID]);
> + key_mask->session_id = 0xffff;
> + }
> + if (tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPP_PROTO]) {
> + key_val->ppp_proto =
> + nla_get_be16(tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPP_PROTO]);
> + key_mask->ppp_proto = cpu_to_be16(~0);
> +
> + if (key_val->ppp_proto == htons(PPP_IP)) {
> + key->basic.n_proto = htons(ETH_P_IP);
> + mask->basic.n_proto = cpu_to_be16(~0);
> + } else if (key_val->ppp_proto == htons(PPP_IPV6)) {
> + key->basic.n_proto = htons(ETH_P_IPV6);
> + mask->basic.n_proto = cpu_to_be16(~0);
> + }
Again, is the lack of MPLS support voluntary?
> + }
> +}
> +
> static void fl_set_key_flag(u32 flower_key, u32 flower_mask,
> u32 *dissector_key, u32 *dissector_mask,
> u32 flower_flag_bit, u32 dissector_flag_bit)
> @@ -1651,6 +1681,9 @@ static int fl_set_key(struct net *net, struct nlattr **tb,
> }
> }
>
> + if (key->basic.n_proto == htons(ETH_P_PPP_SES))
> + fl_set_key_pppoe(tb, &key->pppoe, &mask->pppoe, key, mask);
> +
> if (key->basic.n_proto == htons(ETH_P_IP) ||
> key->basic.n_proto == htons(ETH_P_IPV6)) {
> fl_set_key_val(tb, &key->basic.ip_proto, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_IP_PROTO,
> @@ -1923,6 +1956,8 @@ static void fl_init_dissector(struct flow_dissector *dissector,
> FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_HASH, hash);
> FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED(mask, keys, cnt,
> FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_NUM_OF_VLANS, num_of_vlans);
> + FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED(mask, keys, cnt,
> + FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_PPPOE, pppoe);
>
> skb_flow_dissector_init(dissector, keys, cnt);
> }
> @@ -3051,6 +3086,17 @@ static int fl_dump_key(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net *net,
> fl_dump_key_ip(skb, false, &key->ip, &mask->ip)))
> goto nla_put_failure;
>
> + if (mask->pppoe.session_id) {
> + if (nla_put_u16(skb, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPPOE_SID,
> + key->pppoe.session_id))
> + goto nla_put_failure;
> + }
> + if (mask->basic.n_proto && mask->pppoe.ppp_proto) {
> + if (nla_put_be16(skb, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_PPP_PROTO,
> + key->pppoe.ppp_proto))
> + goto nla_put_failure;
> + }
> +
> if (key->control.addr_type == FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_IPV4_ADDRS &&
> (fl_dump_key_val(skb, &key->ipv4.src, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_IPV4_SRC,
> &mask->ipv4.src, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_IPV4_SRC_MASK,
> --
> 2.35.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists