Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:54:04PM CEST, pab...@redhat.com wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, 2018-07-25 at 13:56 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>> Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:06:39PM CEST, pab...@redhat.com wrote:
>> > Only cls_bpf and act_bpf can safely use such value. If a generic
>> > action is configured by user space to return TC_ACT_REDIRECT,
>> > the usually visible behavior is passing the skb up the stack - as
>> > for unknown action, but, with complex configuration, more random
>> > results can be obtained.
>> >
>> > This patch forcefully converts TC_ACT_REDIRECT to TC_ACT_UNSPEC
>> > at action init time, making the kernel behavior more consistent.
>> >
>> > v1 -> v3: use TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead of a newly definied act value
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com>
>> > ---
>> > net/sched/act_api.c | 5 +++++
>> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
>> > index 148a89ab789b..24b5534967fe 100644
>> > --- a/net/sched/act_api.c
>> > +++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
>> > @@ -895,6 +895,11 @@ 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");
>>
>> Can't you push this warning through extack?
>>
>> But, wouldn't it be more appropriate to fail here? User is passing
>> invalid configuration....
>
>Jiri, Jamal, thank you for the feedback.
>
>Please allow me to answer both of you here, since you raised similar
>concers.
>
>I thought about rejecting the action, but that change of behavior could
>break some users, as currently most kind of invalid tcfa_action values
>are simply accepted.
>
>If there is consensus about it, I can simply fail.
Well it was obviously wrong to expose TC_ACT_REDIRECT to uapi and it
really has no meaning for anyone to use it throughout its whole history.
I would vote for "fail", yet I admit that I am usually alone in opinion
about similar uapi changes :)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paolo
>
