Re: [PATCH net v2] net/sched: cls_flower: fix only mask bit check in the validate_ct_state
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <hidden>
Date: 2021-03-17 17:15:25
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:02:43PM +0800, wenxu@ucloud.cn wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to 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(-)diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c index d097b5c..c69a4ba 100644 --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c@@ -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