netdev - Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/sched: flower: fix error handler on replace

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <87ild8q72m.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 21:32:40 +0300
From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.com>, "Simon
 Horman" <simon.horman@...igine.com>, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	<xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>, <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
	<paulb@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] net/sched: flower: fix error handler on replace


On Thu 04 May 2023 at 16:24, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-05-04 at 16:40 +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> On Tue 02 May 2023 at 19:44, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 14:03:19 +0300 Vlad Buslov wrote:
>> > > Note that with these changes (both accepted patch and preceding diff)
>> > > you are exposing filter to dapapath access (datapath looks up filter via
>> > > hash table, not idr) with its handle set to 0 initially and then resent
>> > > while already accessible. After taking a quick look at Paul's
>> > > miss-to-action code it seems that handle value used by datapath is taken
>> > > from struct tcf_exts_miss_cookie_node not from filter directly, so such
>> > > approach likely doesn't break anything existing, but I might have missed
>> > > something.
>> > 
>> > Did we deadlock in this discussion, or the issue was otherwise fixed?
>> 
>> From my side I explained why in my opinion Ivan's fix doesn't cover all
>> cases and my approach is better overall. Don't know what else to discuss
>> since it seems that everyone agreed.
>
> Do I read correctly that we need a revert of Ivan's patch to safely
> apply this series? If so, could you please repost including such
> revert?

I don't believe our fixes conflict, it is just that Ivan's should become
redundant with mine applied. Anyway, I've just sent V2 with added
revert.