netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 2/3] rdma: Add an option to set privileged QKEY parameter

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: <a01b914d-1ee6-4e48-a4d5-d36ad9435951@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 14:24:46 +0300
From: Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc: jgg@...pe.ca, leon@...nel.org, stephen@...workplumber.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, huangjunxian6@...ilicon.com,
 michaelgur@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2-next 2/3] rdma: Add an option to set privileged
 QKEY parameter


On 10/22/2023 7:48 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On 10/22/23 1:41 AM, Patrisious Haddad wrote:
>> On 10/19/2023 1:38 PM, Petr Machata wrote:
>>> Patrisious Haddad <phaddad@...dia.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> @@ -40,6 +45,22 @@ static int sys_show_parse_cb(const struct nlmsghdr
>>>> *nlh, void *data)
>>>>                       mode_str);
>>>>        }
>>>>    +    if (tb[RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_PRIVILEGED_QKEY_MODE]) {
>>>> +        const char *pqkey_str;
>>>> +        uint8_t pqkey_mode;
>>>> +
>>>> +        pqkey_mode =
>>>> +
>>>> mnl_attr_get_u8(tb[RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_PRIVILEGED_QKEY_MODE]);
>>>> +
>>>> +        if (pqkey_mode < ARRAY_SIZE(privileged_qkey_str))
>>>> +            pqkey_str = privileged_qkey_str[pqkey_mode];
>>>> +        else
>>>> +            pqkey_str = "unknown";
>>>> +
>>>> +        print_color_string(PRINT_ANY, COLOR_NONE, "privileged-qkey",
>>>> +                   "privileged-qkey %s ", pqkey_str);
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>> Elsewhere in the file, you just use print_color_on_off(), why not here?
>> The print_color_on_off was used for copy-on-fork which as you see has no
>> set function,
>>
>> I was simply trying to be consistent with this file convention & style,
>> whereas print_color_string was used for the other configurable value
>> ("netns"), I can obviously change that if you all see it as necessary.
>>
>>>>        if (tb[RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_COPY_ON_FORK])
>>>>            cof = mnl_attr_get_u8(tb[RDMA_NLDEV_SYS_ATTR_COPY_ON_FORK]);
>>>>    @@ -111,10 +155,25 @@ static int sys_set_netns_args(struct rd *rd)
>>>>        return sys_set_netns_cmd(rd, cmd);
>>>>    }
>>>>    +static int sys_set_privileged_qkey_args(struct rd *rd)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    bool cmd;
>>>> +
>>>> +    if (rd_no_arg(rd) || !sys_valid_privileged_qkey_cmd(rd_argv(rd))) {
>>>> +        pr_err("valid options are: { on | off }\n");
>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>> +    }
>>> This could use parse_on_off().
>> You are absolutely correct, but just as well was trying to maintain same
>> code style as the previous configurable value we have here, but I think
>> using parse_on_off here can save us some code.
>>>> +
>>>> +    cmd = (strcmp(rd_argv(rd), "on") == 0) ? true : false;
>>>> +
>>>> +    return sys_set_privileged_qkey_cmd(rd, cmd);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>    static int sys_set_help(struct rd *rd)
>>>>    {
>>>>        pr_out("Usage: %s system set [PARAM] value\n", rd->filename);
>>>>        pr_out("            system set netns { shared | exclusive }\n");
>>>> +    pr_out("            system set privileged-qkey { on | off }\n");
>>>>        return 0;
>>>>    }
>>>>    @@ -124,6 +183,7 @@ static int sys_set(struct rd *rd)
>>>>            { NULL,            sys_set_help },
>>>>            { "help",        sys_set_help },
>>>>            { "netns",        sys_set_netns_args},
>>>> +        { "privileged-qkey",    sys_set_privileged_qkey_args},
>>>>            { 0 }
>>>>        };
>>> The rest of the code looks sane to me, but I'm not familiar with the
>>> feature.
>> If no one else has any comments soon, and these two comments are
>> actually considered critical I can re-send my patches with those issues
>> fixed.
> tools packaged with iproute2 should use common code where possible.

Okay, good point, fixed both comments and sent a V2 , it actually 
resulted in a much cleaner code.

- Thanks.