Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:06:40PM CEST, pab...@redhat.com wrote:
>Currently, when initializing an action, the user-space can specify
>and use arbitrary values for the tcfa_action field. If the value
>is unknown by the kernel, is implicitly threaded as TC_ACT_UNSPEC.
>
>This change explicitly checks for unknown values at action creation
>time, and explicitly convert them to TC_ACT_UNSPEC. No functional
>changes are introduced, but this will allow introducing tcfa_action
>values not exposed to user-space in a later patch.
>
>Note: we can't use the above to hide TC_ACT_REDIRECT from user-space,
>as the latter is already part of uAPI.
>
>Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com>
>---
> include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h | 6 ++++--
> net/sched/act_api.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
>index c4262d911596..c8a24861d4c8 100644
>--- a/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
>+++ b/include/uapi/linux/pkt_cls.h
>@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ enum {
> * the skb and act like everything
> * is alright.
> */
>+#define TC_ACT_VALUE_MAX TC_ACT_TRAP
>
> /* There is a special kind of actions called "extended actions",
> * which need a value parameter. These have a local opcode located in
>@@ -55,11 +56,12 @@ enum {
> #define __TC_ACT_EXT_SHIFT 28
> #define __TC_ACT_EXT(local) ((local) << __TC_ACT_EXT_SHIFT)
> #define TC_ACT_EXT_VAL_MASK ((1 << __TC_ACT_EXT_SHIFT) - 1)
>-#define TC_ACT_EXT_CMP(combined, opcode) \
>- (((combined) & (~TC_ACT_EXT_VAL_MASK)) == opcode)
>+#define TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE(combined) ((combined) & (~TC_ACT_EXT_VAL_MASK))
>+#define TC_ACT_EXT_CMP(combined, opcode) (TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE(combined) ==
>opcode)
>
> #define TC_ACT_JUMP __TC_ACT_EXT(1)
> #define TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN __TC_ACT_EXT(2)
>+#define TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE_MAX TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN
>
> /* Action type identifiers*/
> enum {
>diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
>index 24b5534967fe..5044f4809b37 100644
>--- a/net/sched/act_api.c
>+++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
>@@ -798,6 +798,7 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net,
>struct tcf_proto *tp,
> char act_name[IFNAMSIZ];
> struct nlattr *tb[TCA_ACT_MAX + 1];
> struct nlattr *kind;
>+ int opcode;
> int err;
>
> if (name == NULL) {
>@@ -884,7 +885,8 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net,
>struct tcf_proto *tp,
> if (err != ACT_P_CREATED)
> module_put(a_o->owner);
>
>- if (TC_ACT_EXT_CMP(a->tcfa_action, TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN)) {
>+ opcode = TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE(a->tcfa_action);
>+ if (opcode == TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN) {
> err = tcf_action_goto_chain_init(a, tp);
> if (err) {
> struct tc_action *actions[] = { a, NULL };
>@@ -898,6 +900,12 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net,
>struct tcf_proto *tp,
> if (a->tcfa_action == TC_ACT_REDIRECT) {
> net_warn_ratelimited("TC_ACT_REDIRECT can't be used directly");
> a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
>+ } else if ((!opcode && a->tcfa_action > TC_ACT_VALUE_MAX) ||
>+ (opcode && opcode > TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE_MAX &&
>+ a->tcfa_action != TC_ACT_UNSPEC)) {
>+ net_warn_ratelimited("invalid %d action value",
>+ a->tcfa_action);
>+ a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
Maybe this could be a separate helper function?
Also, the warn might go along with extack to user too.
Otherwise, this looks fine to me.
> }
>
> return a;
>--
>2.17.1
>
