Hi,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:44:17PM +0800, we...@ucloud.cn wrote:
> From: wenxu <we...@ucloud.cn>
>
> The ct_state validate should not only check the mask bit and also
> check the state 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.
Please mention why +trk-new-est is expected.
>
> 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")
checkpatch.pl doesn't complain but I'm not sure if a tab is allowed here, btw.
> Signed-off-by: wenxu <we...@ucloud.cn>
> ---
> net/sched/cls_flower.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/cls_flower.c b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> index d097b5c..92659e1 100644
> --- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> +++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
> @@ -1401,31 +1401,37 @@ static int fl_set_enc_opt(struct nlattr **tb, struct
> fl_flow_key *key,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state, struct nlattr *tb,
> +static int fl_validate_ct_state(u16 state_mask, u16 state,
> + struct nlattr *tb,
The key/mask ordering is becoming messy in flower.
As this function gets called from fl_set_key_ct, please lets keep what was used
there: key, mask. Seems it's still the dominant one.
static int fl_set_key_ct(struct nlattr **tb,
struct flow_dissector_key_ct *key,
struct flow_dissector_key_ct *mask,
On a similar note, I'm wondering if it worth just doing:
u16 effective = state & state_mask;
To avoid this many checks below against key and mask simultaneously.
> struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
> {
> - if (state && !(state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
> + if (state_mask && !(state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED)) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "no trk, so no other flag can be set");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED &&
> state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_ESTABLISHED) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "new and est are mutually exclusive");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> - state & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID &&
> + state_mask & ~(TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_TRACKED |
> TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_INVALID)) {
An indent adjust here is welcomed.
Thanks,
Marcelo
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "when inv is set, only trk may be set");
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + if (state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_NEW &&
> + state_mask & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY &&
> state & TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_FLAGS_REPLY) {
> NL_SET_ERR_MSG_ATTR(extack, tb,
> "new and rpl are mutually exclusive");
> @@ -1451,7 +1457,7 @@ 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(mask->ct_state, key->ct_state,
> tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CT_STATE_MASK],
> extack);
> if (err)
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
