netdev - [PATCH net-next 3/4] sfc: ensure an extack msg from efx_tc_flower_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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <60e3aaba6d6874f76d9c67b804cd1bac297bc7b7.1696261222.git.ecree.xilinx@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 16:44:43 +0100
From: <edward.cree@....com>
To: <linux-net-drivers@....com>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<habetsm.xilinx@...il.com>, <pieter.jansen-van-vuuren@....com>
Subject: [PATCH net-next 3/4] sfc: ensure an extack msg from efx_tc_flower_replace_foreign EOPNOTSUPPs

From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>

There were a few places where no extack error message was set, or the
 extack was not forwarded to callees, potentially resulting in a return
 of -EOPNOTSUPP with no additional information.
Make sure to populate the error message in these cases.  In practice
 this does us no good as TC indirect block callbacks don't come with an
 extack to fill in; but maybe they will someday and when debugging it's
 possible to provide a fake extack and emit its message to the console.

Reviewed-by: Pieter Jansen van Vuuren <pieter.jansen-van-vuuren@....com>
Signed-off-by: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
index f4172fc6bd4f..6acd30f2db1e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/tc.c
@@ -1580,7 +1580,7 @@ static int efx_tc_flower_replace_foreign(struct efx_nic *efx,
 
 	/* Parse match */
 	memset(&match, 0, sizeof(match));
-	rc = efx_tc_flower_parse_match(efx, fr, &match, NULL);
+	rc = efx_tc_flower_parse_match(efx, fr, &match, extack);
 	if (rc)
 		return rc;
 	/* The rule as given to us doesn't specify a source netdevice.
@@ -1629,6 +1629,7 @@ static int efx_tc_flower_replace_foreign(struct efx_nic *efx,
 	if (match.mask.ct_state_est && !match.value.ct_state_est) {
 		if (match.value.tcp_syn_fin_rst) {
 			/* Can't offload this combination */
+			NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "TCP flags and -est conflict for offload");
 			rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
 			goto release;
 		}
@@ -1655,7 +1656,7 @@ static int efx_tc_flower_replace_foreign(struct efx_nic *efx,
 		goto release;
 	}
 
-	rc = efx_mae_match_check_caps(efx, &match.mask, NULL);
+	rc = efx_mae_match_check_caps(efx, &match.mask, extack);
 	if (rc)
 		goto release;
 
@@ -1743,6 +1744,7 @@ static int efx_tc_flower_replace_foreign(struct efx_nic *efx,
 					goto release;
 				}
 				if (!efx_tc_flower_action_order_ok(act, EFX_TC_AO_COUNT)) {
+					NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Count action violates action order (can't happen)");
 					rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
 					goto release;
 				}