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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Fri, 5 May 2023 15:25:20 +0200
From: Simon Horman <simon.horman@...igine.com>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	Ivan Vecera <ivecera@...hat.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, May 04, 2023 at 09:32:40PM +0300, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> 
> 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.

Thanks. FWIIW, this matches my understanding of the situation.