From: wenxu <redacted>
The ct_state validate should not only check the mask bit and also
check mask_bit & key_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.
When Openvswitch with two flows
ct_state=+trk+new,action=commit,forward
ct_state=+trk+est,action=forward
A packet go through the kernel and the contrack state is invalid,
The ct_state will be +trk-inv. Upcall to the ovs-vswitchd, the
finally dp action will be drop with -new-est+trk.
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 <redacted>
---
net/sched/cls_flower.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:02:43PM +0800, wenxu@ucloud.cn wrote:
quoted hunk
From: wenxu <redacted>
The ct_state validate should not only check the mask bit and also
check mask_bit & key_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.
When Openvswitch with two flows
ct_state=+trk+new,action=commit,forward
ct_state=+trk+est,action=forward
A packet go through the kernel and the contrack state is invalid,
The ct_state will be +trk-inv. Upcall to the ovs-vswitchd, the
finally dp action will be drop with -new-est+trk.
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 <redacted>
---
net/sched/cls_flower.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
@@ -1451,7 +1451,7 @@ 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(key->ct_state&mask->ct_state,
Or that, yes. The thing I was wondering on this is if it would be a
problem to have something like
key = trk,inv
mask = trk,new,est,inv
because in essence, this is +trk+inv-new-est, and it's worrying about
bits that shouldn't be considered if +inv is there.
I don't see a reason for it to be that restrictive, though, and it
will work as expected.
Reviewed-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK],
extack);
if (err)
--
1.8.3.1
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (refs/heads/master):
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 12:02:43 +0800 you wrote:
From: wenxu <redacted>
The ct_state validate should not only check the mask bit and also
check mask_bit & key_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.
When Openvswitch with two flows
ct_state=+trk+new,action=commit,forward
ct_state=+trk+est,action=forward
[...]