netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/sched: act_api: add specific EXT_WARN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM0EoMkFvU0Pm7x7tnby3RFdMH7QMZDEJ9A_w70wCp2sZG0RNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Mar 2023 05:39:08 -0400
From:   Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>,
        Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>,
        Marcelo Leitner <mleitner@...hat.com>,
        Phil Sutter <psutter@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/sched: act_api: add specific EXT_WARN_MSG for
 tc action

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:33 PM Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:49:43PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:47 AM Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 06:35:29PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > > Sorry, only thing i should have mentioned earlier - not clear from here:
> > > > Do you get two ext warns now in the same netlink message? One for the
> > > > action and one for the cls?
> > > > Something to check:
> > > > on terminal1 > tc monitor
> > > > on terminal2 > run a command which will get the offload to fail and
> > > > see what response you get
> > > >
> > > > My concern is you may be getting two warnings in one message.
> > >
> > > From the result we only got 1 warning message.
> > >
> > > # tc qdisc add dev enp4s0f0np0 ingress
> > > # tc filter add dev enp4s0f0np0 ingress flower verbose ct_state +trk+new action drop
> > > Warning: mlx5_core: matching on ct_state +new isn't supported.
> > >
> > > # tc monitor
> > > qdisc ingress ffff: dev enp4s0f0np0 parent ffff:fff1 ----------------
> > > added chain dev enp4s0f0np0 parent ffff: chain 0
> > > added filter dev enp4s0f0np0 ingress protocol all pref 49152 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
> > >   ct_state +trk+new
> > >   not_in_hw
> > >         action order 1: gact action drop
> > >          random type none pass val 0
> > >          index 1 ref 1 bind 1
> > >
> > > mlx5_core: matching on ct_state +new isn't supported
> > > ^C
> >
> > Thanks for checking. I was worried from the quick glance that you will
> > end up calling the action code with extack from cls and that the
> > warning will be duplicated.
>
> The action info should be filled via dump function, which will not call
> tca_get_fill(). So I think it should be safe. Please correct me if I missed
> anything.


Right - for a similar scenario, it will only be called when you
offload an action independent of the filter.

cheers,
jamal