Re: [PATCH net] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-16 17:13:53
Hi, On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:44:17PM +0800, wenxu@ucloud.cn wrote:
From: wenxu <redacted> 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.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Signed-off-by: wenxu <redacted> --- 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
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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