From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix: flow validation
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 11:23:14 +0200
Message-ID: <20180503092314.ianfr2xllm7ner5c@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com>
References: <efb6008e678ae09f6e899479296e8d1156d409e3.1525272061.git.nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
 <DB7PR05MB44260BC7AF56086BC4B2FE17C3870@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>,
 Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>, "stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
To: Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com (mail-wm0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D612BA3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  3 May 2018 11:22:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a8so27139081wmg.5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 03 May 2018 02:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR05MB44260BC7AF56086BC4B2FE17C3870@DB7PR05MB4426.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:07:54AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> Hi Nelio,
> 
> Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:43 PM, Nelio Laranjeiro:
> > Subject: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix: flow validation
> 
> The title is wrong the : after the fix should be removed. 

Right,

> > Item spec and last are wrongly compared to the NIC capability causing a
> > validation failure when the mask is null.
> > This validation function should only verify the user is not configuring
> > unsupported matching fields.
> > 
> > Fixes: 2097d0d1e2cc ("net/mlx5: support basic flow items and actions")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
> > ---
>[...]
> > -			rte_errno = EINVAL;
> > -			return -rte_errno;
> > -		}
> > +	if (!spec && (item->mask || last))
> > +		goto error;
> > +	if (!spec)
> > +		return 0;
> > +	for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> 
> 
> I think inline comment which explains what each code section below
> verifies would much help.

Adding it,

> > +		if (spec)
> > +			if (((spec[i] & m[i]) | mask[i]) != mask[i])
> > +				goto error;
> 
> Am wondering. 
> Which the below check of m ...
> 
> > +		if (last)
> > +			if ((((last[i] & m[i]) | mask[i]) != mask[i]) ||
> > +			    ((spec[i] & m[i]) != (last[i] & m[i])))
> > +				goto error;
> > +		if (m)
> > +			if ((m[i] | mask[i]) != mask[i])
> > +				goto error;
> 
> Do we really need to spec check? 
> Meaning if above one passes it is guarantee m is contained in mask.
> And if so, then the spec check will always succeed. 

Indeed,

> >  	}
> >  	return 0;
> > +error:
> > +	rte_errno = ENOTSUP;
> > +	return -rte_errno;
> >  }
> > 
> >  /**
> > --
> > 2.17.0

I am making a v2 accordingly.
 
Thanks,

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND