[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y71BfSFAtZJoker5@hog>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 11:44:13 +0100
From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
To: Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
Cc: ehakim@...dia.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, raeds@...dia.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 1/2] macsec: add support for
IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD in macsec_changelink
2023-01-10, 09:43:37 +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> Quoting Sabrina Dubroca (2023-01-09 16:14:32)
> > 2023-01-09, 10:55:56 +0200, ehakim@...dia.com wrote:
> > > @@ -3840,6 +3835,12 @@ static int macsec_changelink(struct net_device *dev, struct nlattr *tb[],
> > > if (ret)
> > > goto cleanup;
> > >
> > > + if (data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]) {
> > > + ret = macsec_update_offload(dev, nla_get_u8(data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]));
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto cleanup;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > /* If h/w offloading is available, propagate to the device */
> > > if (macsec_is_offloaded(macsec)) {
> > > const struct macsec_ops *ops;
> >
> > There's a missing rollback of the offloading status in the (probably
> > quite unlikely) case that mdo_upd_secy fails, no? We can't fail
> > macsec_get_ops because macsec_update_offload would have failed
> > already, but I guess the driver could fail in mdo_upd_secy, and then
> > "goto cleanup" doesn't restore the offloading state. Sorry I didn't
> > notice this earlier.
> >
> > In case the IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD attribute is provided and we're
> > enabling offload, we also end up calling the driver's mdo_add_secy,
> > and then immediately afterwards mdo_upd_secy, which probably doesn't
> > make much sense.
> >
> > Maybe we could turn that into:
> >
> > if (data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]) {
>
> If data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD] is provided but doesn't change the
> offloading state, then macsec_update_offload will return early and
> mdo_upd_secy won't be called.
Ouch, thanks for catching this.
>
> > ... macsec_update_offload
> > } else if (macsec_is_offloaded(macsec)) {
> > /* If h/w offloading is available, propagate to the device */
> > ... mdo_upd_secy
> > }
> >
> > Antoine, does that look reasonable to you?
>
> But yes I agree we can improve the logic. Maybe something like:
>
> prev_offload = macsec->offload;
> offload = data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD];
That needs to be under if (data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]) and then the
rest gets a bit messy.
>
> if (prev_offload != offload) {
> macsec_update_offload(...)
> } else if (macsec_is_offloaded(macsec)) {
> ...
> prev_offload can be used to restore the offloading state on
> failure here.
> }
We also have a prev != new test at the start of macsec_update_offload,
the duplication is a bit ugly. We could move it out and then only call
macsec_update_offload when there is a change to do, both from
macsec_changelink and macsec_upd_offload.
Since we don't need to restore in the second branch, and we can only
fetch IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD when it's present, maybe:
change = false;
if (data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]) {
offload = nla_get_u8(data[IFLA_MACSEC_OFFLOAD]);
if (macsec->offload != offload) {
change = true;
macsec_update_offload ...cleanup
}
}
if (!change && macsec_is_offloaded(macsec)) {
...
}
Or let macsec_update_offload do the macsec->offload != offload test
and pass &change so that changelink can know what to do next.
--
Sabrina
Powered by blists - more mailing lists