On 31/07/18 10:40 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
If we choose to reject unknown opcodes, such user-space configuration
will fail.
I think that is a good thing. The kernel should not be accepting things
it doesnt understand. This is a good opportunity to enforce that.
What would happen before this p
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 09:53 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> BTW, I asked this earlier and Jiri said it was addressed in patch 2.
> I just looked again and i may be missing something basic:
> Lets say tomorrow in a new kernel we add new TC_ACT_XXX that then gets
> exposed to uapi - so user space t
On 31/07/18 05:41 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
Before this patch, the kernel exposed the same behaviour for negative
value of 'bar', while, for positive 'bar' values, the overall behaviour
was more complex (some classifier always stops with unknown positive
action value, others go to lower prio).
>
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 15:31 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 30/07/18 12:41 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 10:03 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > > On 30/07/18 08:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
On 30/07/18 12:41 PM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 10:03 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
On 30/07/18 08:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
}
+ if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using TC_ACT_UNSPEC
instead");
+
On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 10:03 -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 30/07/18 08:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > }
> >
> > + if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
> > + NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using
> > TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead");
> > + a->tcfa_action =
Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 04:03:50PM CEST, j...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>On 30/07/18 08:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> }
>> +if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
>> +NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using
>> TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead");
>> +a->tcfa_action = TC_AC
On 30/07/18 08:30 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
}
+ if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
+ NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using TC_ACT_UNSPEC
instead");
+ a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
+ }
+
return a;
I think it would make
Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 02:30:42PM 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 f
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 th
10 matches
Mail list logo
