netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/5] net/sched: act_api: conditional notification of events

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: <ZW8KaANgu0DpryWV@nanopsycho>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 12:32:56 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, jhs@...atatu.com,
	xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, marcelo.leitner@...il.com,
	vladbu@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/5] net/sched: act_api: conditional
 notification of events

Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 09:39:06PM CET, pctammela@...atatu.com wrote:
>As of today tc-action events are unconditionally built and sent to
>RTNLGRP_TC. As with the introduction of tc_should_notify we can check
>before-hand if they are really needed.
>
>Signed-off-by: Pedro Tammela <pctammela@...atatu.com>
>---
> net/sched/act_api.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
>index c39252d61ebb..55c62a8e8803 100644
>--- a/net/sched/act_api.c
>+++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
>@@ -1780,31 +1780,45 @@ static int tcf_action_delete(struct net *net, struct tc_action *actions[])
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
>-static int
>-tcf_reoffload_del_notify(struct net *net, struct tc_action *action)
>+static struct sk_buff *tcf_reoffload_del_notify_msg(struct net *net,

I wonder, why this new function is needed? If I'm reading things
correctly, tcf_reoffload_del_notify() with added check would be just ok,
woundn't it?

Same for others.

>+						    struct tc_action *action)
> {
> 	size_t attr_size = tcf_action_fill_size(action);
> 	struct tc_action *actions[TCA_ACT_MAX_PRIO] = {
> 		[0] = action,
> 	};
>-	const struct tc_action_ops *ops = action->ops;
> 	struct sk_buff *skb;
>-	int ret;
> 
>-	skb = alloc_skb(attr_size <= NLMSG_GOODSIZE ? NLMSG_GOODSIZE : attr_size,
>-			GFP_KERNEL);
>+	skb = alloc_skb(max(attr_size, NLMSG_GOODSIZE), GFP_KERNEL);

I don't see how this is related to this patch. Can't you do it in separate
patch?

Same for others.

> 	if (!skb)
>-		return -ENOBUFS;
>+		return ERR_PTR(-ENOBUFS);
> 
> 	if (tca_get_fill(skb, actions, 0, 0, 0, RTM_DELACTION, 0, 1, NULL) <= 0) {
> 		kfree_skb(skb);
>-		return -EINVAL;
>+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> 	}
> 
>+	return skb;
>+}
>+

[...]