netdev - Re: [iwl-next v1] ice: add recipe priority check in search

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: <20241021135703.GK402847@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:57:03 +0100
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com, marcin.szycik@...el.com
Subject: Re: [iwl-next v1] ice: add recipe priority check in search

On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 09:03:28AM +0200, Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> The new recipe should be added even if exactly the same recipe already
> exists with different priority.
> 
> Example use case is when the rule is being added from TC tool context.
> It should has the highest priority, but if the recipe already exists
> the rule will inherit it priority. It can lead to the situation when
> the rule added from TC tool has lower priority than expected.
> 
> The solution is to check the recipe priority when trying to find
> existing one.
> 
> Previous recipe is still useful. Example:
> RID 8 -> priority 4
> RID 10 -> priority 7
> 
> The difference is only in priority rest is let's say eth + mac +
> direction.
> 
> Adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI
> After that IP + MAC_B + RX on RID 10 (from TC tool), forward to PF0
> 
> Both will work.
> 
> In case of adding ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 8, forward to VF0_VSI
> ARP + MAC_A + RX on RID 10, forward to PF0.
> 
> Only second one will match, but this is expected.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Marcin Szycik <marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>