netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] net/sched: act_pedit, setup offload action for action stats query

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: <a32d4a16-90d9-06b5-c56f-aaa4304795e5@mojatatu.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 17:59:10 -0300
From:   Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
To:     Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>,
        Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
        Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>,
        Baowen Zheng <baowen.zheng@...igine.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] net/sched: act_pedit, setup offload action
 for action stats query

On 01/02/2023 13:10, Oz Shlomo wrote:
> A single tc pedit action may be translated to multiple flow_offload
> actions.
> Offload only actions that translate to a single pedit command value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>
> ---
>   net/sched/act_pedit.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/sched/act_pedit.c b/net/sched/act_pedit.c
> index a0378e9f0121..abceef794f28 100644
> --- a/net/sched/act_pedit.c
> +++ b/net/sched/act_pedit.c
> @@ -522,7 +522,29 @@ static int tcf_pedit_offload_act_setup(struct tc_action *act, void *entry_data,
>   		}
>   		*index_inc = k;
>   	} else {
> -		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +		struct flow_offload_action *fl_action = entry_data;
> +		u32 last_cmd;
> +		int k;
> +
> +		for (k = 0; k < tcf_pedit_nkeys(act); k++) {
> +			u32 cmd = tcf_pedit_cmd(act, k);
> +
> +			if (k && cmd != last_cmd)
> +				return -EOPNOTSUPP;

I believe an extack message here is very valuable

> +
> +			last_cmd = cmd;
> +			switch (cmd) {
> +			case TCA_PEDIT_KEY_EX_CMD_SET:
> +				fl_action->id = FLOW_ACTION_MANGLE;
> +				break;
> +			case TCA_PEDIT_KEY_EX_CMD_ADD:
> +				fl_action->id = FLOW_ACTION_ADD;
> +				break;
> +			default:
> +				NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Unsupported pedit command offload");
> +				return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +			}
> +		}

Shouldn't this switch case be outside of the for-loop?

>   	}
>   
>   	return 0;