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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230807190602.pvforrful3zmqiv6@skbuf> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:06:02 +0300 From: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com> To: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Muhammad Husaini Zulkifli <muhammad.husaini.zulkifli@...el.com>, Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@...il.com>, Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>, Zhengchao Shao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>, Maxim Georgiev <glipus@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 09/10] selftests/tc-testing: test that taprio can only be attached as root On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:43:16AM -0700, Vinicius Costa Gomes wrote: > Hmmm, I think that this test discovered another bug (perhaps even two). > When it fails here's the json I get (edited for clarity): > > [{"kind":"taprio","handle":"8001:","root":true,"refcnt":9, > "options":{ > "tc":0, > "map":[0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0], > "queues":[], > "clockid":"TAI", > "base_time":0, > "cycle_time":0, > "cycle_time_extension":0, > { > "base_time":0, > "cycle_time":20000000, > "cycle_time_extension":0, > "schedule":[{"index":0,"cmd":"S","gatemask":"0xff","interval":20000000}] > }}}] > > Thinking out loud: If I am reading this right, there's no "oper" > schedule, only an "admin" schedule. So the first bug is probably a > taprio bug when deciding if it should create an "open" vs. "admin" > schedule. > > The second bug seems to be in the way that q_taprio in iproute2 > handles the admin schedule, is just an object inside another, which > seems to be invalid. > > Does it make sense? Yes, it makes sense, thanks. I've sent some iproute2 patches that fix the user space issues, and I'll soon send a v4 which takes into consideration the fact that the admin schedule may not become operational right away. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20230807160827.4087483-1-vladimir.oltean@nxp.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists