* [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state
@ 2021-03-16 7:44 wenxu
2021-03-16 16:57 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-03-16 17:12 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: wenxu @ 2021-03-16 7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kuba, mleitner; +Cc: netdev, jhs, davem
From: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
The ct_state validate should not only check the mask bit and also
check the state bit.
For the +new+est case example, The 'new' and 'est' bits should be
set in both state_mask and state flags. Or the -new-est case also
will be reject by kernel.
Fixes: 1bcc51ac0731 ("net/sched: cls_flower: Reject invalid ct_state flags rules")
Fixes: 3aed8b63336c ("net/sched: cls_flower: validate ct_state for invalid and reply flags")
Signed-off-by: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
---
net/sched/cls_flower.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
index d097b5c..92659e1 100644
--- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
+++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
@@ -1401,31 +1401,37 @@ static int fl_set_enc_opt(struct nlattr **tb, struct fl_flow_key *key,
return 0;
}
-static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state, struct nlattr *tb,
+static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state_mask, u16 state,
+ struct nlattr *tb,
struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
{
- if (state && !(state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
+ if (state_mask && !(state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
"no trk, so no other flag can be set");
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
+ if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
+ state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
+ state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED &&
state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
"new and est are mutually exclusive");
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
- state & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
+ if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
+ state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
+ state_mask & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID)) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
"when inv is set, only trk may be set");
return -EINVAL;
}
- if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
+ if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
+ state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
+ state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY &&
state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY) {
NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
"new and rpl are mutually exclusive");
@@ -1451,7 +1457,7 @@ static int fl_set_key_ct(struct nlattr **tb,
&mask->ct_state, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK,
sizeof(key->ct_state));
- err = fl_validate_ct_state(mask->ct_state,
+ err = fl_validate_ct_state(mask->ct_state, key->ct_state,
tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK],
extack);
if (err)
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state
2021-03-16 7:44 [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state wenxu
@ 2021-03-16 16:57 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-03-16 17:12 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Kicinski @ 2021-03-16 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wenxu; +Cc: mleitner, netdev, jhs, davem
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:44:17 +0800 wenxu@ucloud.cn wrote:
> From: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
>
> The ct_state validate should not only check the mask bit and also
> check the state bit.
> For the +new+est case example, The 'new' and 'est' bits should be
> set in both state_mask and state flags. Or the -new-est case also
> will be reject by kernel.
>
> Fixes: 1bcc51ac0731 ("net/sched: cls_flower: Reject invalid ct_state flags rules")
> Fixes: 3aed8b63336c ("net/sched: cls_flower: validate ct_state for invalid and reply flags")
> Signed-off-by: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
> ---
> net/sched/cls_flower.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> index d097b5c..92659e1 100644
> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> @@ -1401,31 +1401,37 @@ static int fl_set_enc_opt(struct nlattr **tb, struct fl_flow_key *key,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state, struct nlattr *tb,
> +static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state_mask, u16 state,
> + struct nlattr *tb,
> struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> {
> - if (state && !(state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
> + if (state_mask && !(state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "no trk, so no other flag can be set");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
bitwise and operator chains well, BTW, so this could be written as:
if (state & state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
state & state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED) {
> + state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED &&
> state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "new and est are mutually exclusive");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> - state & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> + state_mask & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
> TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID)) {
nit: this needs to be realigned after opening bracket has moved
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "when inv is set, only trk may be set");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY &&
> state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "new and rpl are mutually exclusive");
> @@ -1451,7 +1457,7 @@ static int fl_set_key_ct(struct nlattr **tb,
> &mask->ct_state, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK,
> sizeof(key->ct_state));
>
> - err = fl_validate_ct_state(mask->ct_state,
> + err = fl_validate_ct_state(mask->ct_state, key->ct_state,
> tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK],
> extack);
> if (err)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state
2021-03-16 7:44 [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state wenxu
2021-03-16 16:57 ` Jakub Kicinski
@ 2021-03-16 17:12 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner @ 2021-03-16 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wenxu; +Cc: kuba, netdev, jhs, davem
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:44:17PM +0800, wenxu@ucloud.cn wrote:
> From: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
>
> The ct_state validate should not only check the mask bit and also
> check the state bit.
> For the +new+est case example, The 'new' and 'est' bits should be
> set in both state_mask and state flags. Or the -new-est case also
> will be reject by kernel.
Please mention why +trk-new-est is expected.
>
> Fixes: 1bcc51ac0731 ("net/sched: cls_flower: Reject invalid ct_state flags rules")
> Fixes: 3aed8b63336c ("net/sched: cls_flower: validate ct_state for invalid and reply flags")
checkpatch.pl doesn't complain but I'm not sure if a tab is allowed here, btw.
> Signed-off-by: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
> ---
> net/sched/cls_flower.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> index d097b5c..92659e1 100644
> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> @@ -1401,31 +1401,37 @@ static int fl_set_enc_opt(struct nlattr **tb, struct fl_flow_key *key,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state, struct nlattr *tb,
> +static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state_mask, u16 state,
> + struct nlattr *tb,
The key/mask ordering is becoming messy in flower.
As this function gets called from fl_set_key_ct, please lets keep what was used
there: key, mask. Seems it's still the dominant one.
static int fl_set_key_ct(struct nlattr **tb,
struct flow_dissector_key_ct *key,
struct flow_dissector_key_ct *mask,
On a similar note, I'm wondering if it worth just doing:
u16 effective = state & state_mask;
To avoid this many checks below against key and mask simultaneously.
> struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> {
> - if (state && !(state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
> + if (state_mask && !(state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "no trk, so no other flag can be set");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED &&
> state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "new and est are mutually exclusive");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> - state & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> + state_mask & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
> TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID)) {
An indent adjust here is welcomed.
Thanks,
Marcelo
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "when inv is set, only trk may be set");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY &&
> state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "new and rpl are mutually exclusive");
> @@ -1451,7 +1457,7 @@ static int fl_set_key_ct(struct nlattr **tb,
> &mask->ct_state, TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK,
> sizeof(key->ct_state));
>
> - err = fl_validate_ct_state(mask->ct_state,
> + err = fl_validate_ct_state(mask->ct_state, key->ct_state,
> tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK],
> extack);
> if (err)
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-03-16 17:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-03-16 7:44 [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state wenxu
2021-03-16 16:57 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-03-16 17:12 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox