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: <CALnP8ZZtqkumhUrRtCAqQDHQfEydG0YaszZrafjuXL2CV_oDCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Feb 2023 07:31:36 -0800
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>
To:     Oz Shlomo <ozsh@...dia.com>
Cc:     Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...dia.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.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 Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 09:21:15AM +0200, Oz Shlomo wrote:
>
> On 01/02/2023 22:59, Pedro Tammela wrote:
> > 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
> Sure thing, I will add one
> >
> > > +
> > > +            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?
>
> You are right, this can be done outside the for loop.

To before the for-loop, that is?
Because otherwise it will parse all commands and then fail, which seems heavier
than how it is here.

- validate the first one
- ensure the rest follows

>
> I will refactor the code
>
> >
> > >       }
> > >         return 0;
> >
>