netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: sparx5: flower: cleanup sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control

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: <20240423111515.wzvclnlxdwv77zy7@DEN-DL-M70577>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 11:15:15 +0000
From: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>
To: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@...rochip.com>,
	Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@...rochip.com>, <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: sparx5: flower: cleanup
 sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control_usage()

Hi Asbjørn,

Thank you for your patch!

> Define extack locally, to reduce line lengths and future users.
> 
> Only perform fragment handling, when at least one fragment flag is set.
> 
> Remove goto, as it's only used once, and the error message is specific
> to that context.
> 
> Only compile tested.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>
> ---
>  .../ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c    | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c
> index 663571fe7b2d..d846edd77a01 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/microchip/sparx5/sparx5_tc_flower.c
> @@ -159,13 +159,14 @@ sparx5_tc_flower_handler_basic_usage(struct vcap_tc_flower_parse_usage *st)
>  static int
>  sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control_usage(struct vcap_tc_flower_parse_usage *st)
>  {
> +       struct netlink_ext_ack *extack = st->fco->common.extack;

Could you please update the use of extack in all places inside this
function. You are missing one place.

>         struct flow_match_control mt;
>         u32 value, mask;
>         int err = 0;
> 
>         flow_rule_match_control(st->frule, &mt);
> 
> -       if (mt.mask->flags) {
> +       if (mt.mask->flags & (FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG)) {

Since these flags are used here and in the next patch, maybe assign them
to a variable:

u32 supp_flags = FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT | FLOW_DIS_FIRST_FRAG

And update the use throughout.

>                 u8 is_frag_key = !!(mt.key->flags & FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT);
>                 u8 is_frag_mask = !!(mt.mask->flags & FLOW_DIS_IS_FRAGMENT);
>                 u8 is_frag_idx = (is_frag_key << 1) | is_frag_mask;
> @@ -190,17 +191,15 @@ sparx5_tc_flower_handler_control_usage(struct vcap_tc_flower_parse_usage *st)
>                 err = vcap_rule_add_key_u32(st->vrule,
>                                             VCAP_KF_L3_FRAGMENT_TYPE,
>                                             value, mask);
> -               if (err)
> -                       goto out;
> +               if (err) {
> +                       NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "ip_frag parse error");
> +                       return err;
> +               }
>         }
> 
>         st->used_keys |= BIT_ULL(FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_CONTROL);
> 
>         return err;
> -
> -out:
> -       NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(st->fco->common.extack, "ip_frag parse error");
> -       return err;
>  }
> 
>  static int
> --
> 2.43.0

Also I think you missing a cover letter for this series.

I will run the patches through our tests once the issues are addressed.

/Daniel