Dear Anoob, Thank you for your reply and hints.
Now I have patches ready to send as version 2, but I hesitate, because I don't like the idea of placing all checks in #ifdefs for RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY_DEBUG config option. Let me explain here why: The config flag as a debug one will be disabled by default, which means, that normally nobody will use the checks. I believe that it is much better to have checks enabled as most of them will save the user of librte_security from segmentation faults, when trying to run instance->ops functions that are not supported or use invalid mempool object. I believe it will cause much less trouble to verify the error codes than to fight the segfault. It is also mentioned in the API description in few places that specific codes are returned in case some operation is not supported. Can we make such a changes in API, changing the current behavior from an error return code to segmentation fault during execution? That's why I would like to keep all of the checks enabled and not placed inside config option. However it would be nice to add the RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY_DEBUG flag that you mentioned for changing checks behavior, to additionally provide logs of checks. This way a devloper using libret_security won't get a segmentation faults but error codes. If [s]he wants to check the details he'll rebuild the library with debug config option enabled and will be able to see all the details in logs, so [s]he will be able to fix the code. What do you think about such usage of the config debug flag? Best regards Lukasz W dniu 05.04.2020 o 14:54, Anoob Joseph pisze: > Hi Lukasz, > > Please see inline. > > Thanks, > Anoob > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lukasz Wojciechowski <l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com> >> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2020 12:06 AM >> To: Anoob Joseph <ano...@marvell.com>; dev@dpdk.org >> Cc: Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya <pathr...@marvell.com>; Lukas Bartosik [C] >> <lbarto...@marvell.com> >> Subject: [EXT] Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/13] librte_security: fix >> verification of >> parameters >> >> External Email >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Hi Anoob, >> >> Thank you very much for your review. >> Please see my answers inline. >> >> Best regards, >> Lukasz >> >> >> W dniu 17.03.2020 o 13:59, Anoob Joseph pisze: >>> Hi Lukasz, >>> >>> Please see inline. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Anoob >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: dev <dev-boun...@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Lukasz Wojciechowski >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 8:47 PM >>>> To: dev@dpdk.org >>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 01/13] librte_security: fix verification >>>> of parameters >>> [Anoob] I believe the title has to be: "security: fix verification of >>> parameters" >>> >>> Also, you can add "Fixes" as well. >> I changed the title and will push the new on in 2nd version of the paches >> after I'll >> fix all other issues. >> >> How do you add a "Fixes" tag to a patch? > [Anoob] > > Check the below link. It explains the format of the patch with fixes. > https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=13e80549-4e769ea3-13e98e06-0cc47a6cba04-78f48282e990b416&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fdoc.dpdk.org%2Fguides%2Fcontributing%2Fpatches.html%23commit-messages-body > >>>> This patch adds verification of the parameters to the ret_security API >> functions. >>>> All required parameters are checked if they are not NULL. >>>> >>>> Checks verify full chain of pointers, e.g. in case of verification of >>>> "instance->ops- >>>>> session_XXX", they check also "instance" and "instance->ops". >>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Wojciechowski >>>> <l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com> >>>> Change-Id: I1724c926a1a0a13fd16d76f19842a0b40fbea1b2 >>>> --- >>>> lib/librte_security/rte_security.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++------- >>>> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c >>>> b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c >>>> index bc81ce15d..40a0e9ce5 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c >>>> +++ b/lib/librte_security/rte_security.c >>>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ >>>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause >>>> * Copyright 2017 NXP. >>>> * Copyright(c) 2017 Intel Corporation. >>>> + * Copyright (c) 2020 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd All Rights >>>> + Reserved >>>> */ >>>> >>>> #include <rte_malloc.h> >>>> @@ -9,6 +10,12 @@ >>>> #include "rte_security.h" >>>> #include "rte_security_driver.h" >>>> >>>> +/* Macro to check for invalid pointers */ >>>> +#define RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(ptr, retval) do { \ >>>> + if ((ptr) == NULL) \ >>>> + return retval; \ >>>> +} while (0) >>>> + >>>> struct rte_security_session * >>>> rte_security_session_create(struct rte_security_ctx *instance, >>>> struct rte_security_session_conf *conf, @@ >>>> -16,10 >>>> +23,11 @@ rte_security_session_create(struct rte_security_ctx >>>> +*instance, { >>>> struct rte_security_session *sess = NULL; >>>> >>>> - if (conf == NULL) >>>> - return NULL; >>>> - >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->session_create, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->session_create, NULL); >>> [Anoob] The above three lines are repeated for every op NULL check. Can we >> introduce one macro for doing all the three checks? In case if it doesn't >> come >> off well, we can stick to individual checks. >> Done. Will appear in 2nd version of patches. >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(conf, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(mp, NULL); >>>> >>>> if (rte_mempool_get(mp, (void **)&sess)) >>>> return NULL; >>>> @@ -38,14 +46,20 @@ rte_security_session_update(struct >>>> rte_security_ctx *instance, >>>> struct rte_security_session *sess, >>>> struct rte_security_session_conf *conf) { >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->session_update, - >>>> ENOTSUP); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->session_update, -ENOTSUP); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(sess, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(conf, -EINVAL); >>>> return instance->ops->session_update(instance->device, sess, >>>> conf); } >>>> >>>> unsigned int >>>> rte_security_session_get_size(struct rte_security_ctx *instance) { >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->session_get_size, 0); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, 0); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, 0); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->session_get_size, 0); >>>> return instance->ops->session_get_size(instance->device); >>>> } >>>> >>>> @@ -54,7 +68,11 @@ rte_security_session_stats_get(struct >>>> rte_security_ctx *instance, >>>> struct rte_security_session *sess, >>>> struct rte_security_stats *stats) { >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->session_stats_get, - >>>> ENOTSUP); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->session_stats_get, -ENOTSUP); >>>> + // Parameter sess can be NULL in case of getting global statistics. >>> [Anoob] Checkpatch error. >>> ERROR:C99_COMMENTS: do not use C99 // comments >> Done. Will appear in 2nd version of patches. >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(stats, -EINVAL); >>>> return instance->ops->session_stats_get(instance->device, sess, >>>> stats); } >>>> >>>> @@ -64,7 +82,10 @@ rte_security_session_destroy(struct >>>> rte_security_ctx *instance, { >>>> int ret; >>>> >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->session_destroy, - >>>> ENOTSUP); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->session_destroy, -ENOTSUP); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(sess, -EINVAL); >>>> >>>> if (instance->sess_cnt) >>>> instance->sess_cnt--; >>>> @@ -81,7 +102,11 @@ rte_security_set_pkt_metadata(struct >>>> rte_security_ctx *instance, >>>> struct rte_security_session *sess, >>>> struct rte_mbuf *m, void *params) { >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->set_pkt_metadata, - >>>> ENOTSUP); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->set_pkt_metadata, -ENOTSUP); >>> [Anoob] set_pkt_metadata() and get_userdata() are datapath ops. So can you >> introduce a config option to enable/disable the checks. >>> Please check, >>> https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=eee8020a-b37699e0-eee98945-0cc47a6cba04-561954f3424eceea&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__protect2.fireeye. >>> com_url-3Fk-3Dc52d8c32-2D98e14097-2Dc52c077d-2D0cc47a30d446- >> 2Dc1b9d873 >>> e3e59cc4-26u-3Dhttp-3A__code.dpdk.org_dpdk_latest_source_lib_librte-5F >>> ethdev_rte-5Fethdev.h- >> 23L4372&d=DwIDaQ&c=nKjWec2b6R0mOyPaz7xtfQ&r=jPfB >>> 8rwwviRSxyLWs2n6B- >> WYLn1v9SyTMrT5EQqh2TU&m=aTo18FDvqHQBghOAhbi7x0f6EuX7 >> wZHTUtsRRloZ9Bw&s=TXpv6uQZW1WwB_Av3vCaHeUaibQzA0ypUUqnPy5aQlE >> &e= >> Could you explain a bit further? >> >> Do you propose to make checks inside #ifdef RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY_DEBUG or >> so? > [Anoob] Yes. You will need to introduce a new config flag > (RTE_LIBRTE_SECURITY_DEBUG) and based on that, the error checks can be > enabled/disabled. > >> And do you have all checks or just sess and m on mind? > [Anoob] I think we should have all checks under the config option. > >> The instance->ops->function checks were already there without any config >> options in all API functions. > [Anoob] Must have slipped through. Thanks for pointing it out. > >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(sess, -EINVAL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(m, -EINVAL); >>>> return instance->ops->set_pkt_metadata(instance->device, >>>> sess, m, params); >>>> } >>>> @@ -91,7 +116,9 @@ rte_security_get_userdata(struct rte_security_ctx >>>> *instance, uint64_t md) { >>>> void *userdata = NULL; >>>> >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->get_userdata, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->get_userdata, NULL); >>>> if (instance->ops->get_userdata(instance->device, md, >>>> &userdata)) >>>> return NULL; >>>> >>>> @@ -101,7 +128,9 @@ rte_security_get_userdata(struct rte_security_ctx >>>> *instance, uint64_t md) const struct rte_security_capability * >>>> rte_security_capabilities_get(struct rte_security_ctx *instance) { >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->capabilities_get, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->capabilities_get, NULL); >>>> return instance->ops->capabilities_get(instance->device); >>>> } >>>> >>>> @@ -113,7 +142,10 @@ rte_security_capability_get(struct >>>> rte_security_ctx *instance, >>>> const struct rte_security_capability *capability; >>>> uint16_t i = 0; >>>> >>>> - RTE_FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(*instance->ops->capabilities_get, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(instance->ops->capabilities_get, NULL); >>>> + RTE_PTR_OR_ERR_RET(idx, NULL); >>>> capabilities = >>>> instance->ops->capabilities_get(instance->device); >>>> >>>> if (capabilities == NULL) >>>> @@ -121,7 +153,7 @@ rte_security_capability_get(struct >>>> rte_security_ctx *instance, >>>> >>>> while ((capability = &capabilities[i++])->action >>>> != RTE_SECURITY_ACTION_TYPE_NONE) { >>>> - if (capability->action == idx->action && >>>> + if (capability->action == idx->action && >>>> capability->protocol == idx->protocol) { >>>> if (idx->protocol == >>>> RTE_SECURITY_PROTOCOL_IPSEC) >> { >>>> if (capability->ipsec.proto == >>>> -- >>>> 2.17.1 >> -- >> >> Lukasz Wojciechowski >> Principal Software Engineer >> >> Samsung R&D Institute Poland >> Samsung Electronics >> Office +48 22 377 88 25 >> l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com -- Lukasz Wojciechowski Principal Software Engineer Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics Office +48 22 377 88 25 l.wojciec...@partner.samsung.com
