netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 10/15] net: enetc: request mqprio to validate the queue counts

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Y9pzW3i3yqO/bnjE@corigine.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 15:12:43 +0100
From:   Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 10/15] net: enetc: request mqprio to validate
 the queue counts

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 07:31:40PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> The enetc driver does not validate the mqprio queue configuration, so it
> currently allows things like this:
> 
> $ tc qdisc add dev swp0 root handle 1: mqprio num_tc 8 \
> 	map 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 queues 3@0 1@1 1@2 1@3 1@4 1@5 1@6 1@7 hw 1
> 
> By requesting validation via the mqprio capability structure, this is no
> longer allowed, and needs no custom code in the driver.
> 
> The check that num_tc <= real_num_tx_queues also becomes superfluous and
> can be dropped, because mqprio_validate_queue_counts() validates that no
> TXQ range exceeds real_num_tx_queues. That is a stronger check, because
> there is at least 1 TXQ per TC, so there are at least as many TXQs as TCs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>