| Message ID | 20190530140840.741-1-maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [net] ethtool: Check for vlan etype or vlan tci when parsing flow_rule | expand |
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 04:08:40PM +0200, Maxime Chevallier wrote: > When parsing an ethtool flow spec to build a flow_rule, the code checks > if both the vlan etype and the vlan tci are specified by the user to add > a FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN match. > > However, when the user only specified a vlan etype or a vlan tci, this > check silently ignores these parameters. > > For example, the following rule : > > ethtool -N eth0 flow-type udp4 vlan 0x0010 action -1 loc 0 > > will result in no error being issued, but the equivalent rule will be > created and passed to the NIC driver : > > ethtool -N eth0 flow-type udp4 action -1 loc 0 > > In the end, neither the NIC driver using the rule nor the end user have > a way to know that these keys were dropped along the way, or that > incorrect parameters were entered. > > This kind of check should be left to either the driver, or the ethtool > flow spec layer. > > This commit makes so that ethtool parameters are forwarded as-is to the > NIC driver. > > Since none of the users of ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create are using the > VLAN dissector, I don't think this qualifies as a regression. > > Fixes: eca4205f9ec3 ("ethtool: add ethtool_rx_flow_spec to flow_rule structure translator") > Signed-off-by: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com> Acked-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@gnumonks.org> Thanks!
From: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 16:08:40 +0200 > When parsing an ethtool flow spec to build a flow_rule, the code checks > if both the vlan etype and the vlan tci are specified by the user to add > a FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN match. > > However, when the user only specified a vlan etype or a vlan tci, this > check silently ignores these parameters. > > For example, the following rule : > > ethtool -N eth0 flow-type udp4 vlan 0x0010 action -1 loc 0 > > will result in no error being issued, but the equivalent rule will be > created and passed to the NIC driver : > > ethtool -N eth0 flow-type udp4 action -1 loc 0 > > In the end, neither the NIC driver using the rule nor the end user have > a way to know that these keys were dropped along the way, or that > incorrect parameters were entered. > > This kind of check should be left to either the driver, or the ethtool > flow spec layer. > > This commit makes so that ethtool parameters are forwarded as-is to the > NIC driver. > > Since none of the users of ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create are using the > VLAN dissector, I don't think this qualifies as a regression. > > Fixes: eca4205f9ec3 ("ethtool: add ethtool_rx_flow_spec to flow_rule structure translator") > Signed-off-by: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com> Applied, thank you.
diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c index 4a593853cbf2..43e9add58340 100644 --- a/net/core/ethtool.c +++ b/net/core/ethtool.c @@ -3010,11 +3010,12 @@ ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create(const struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec_input *input) const struct ethtool_flow_ext *ext_h_spec = &fs->h_ext; const struct ethtool_flow_ext *ext_m_spec = &fs->m_ext; - if (ext_m_spec->vlan_etype && - ext_m_spec->vlan_tci) { + if (ext_m_spec->vlan_etype) { match->key.vlan.vlan_tpid = ext_h_spec->vlan_etype; match->mask.vlan.vlan_tpid = ext_m_spec->vlan_etype; + } + if (ext_m_spec->vlan_tci) { match->key.vlan.vlan_id = ntohs(ext_h_spec->vlan_tci) & 0x0fff; match->mask.vlan.vlan_id = @@ -3024,7 +3025,10 @@ ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create(const struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec_input *input) (ntohs(ext_h_spec->vlan_tci) & 0xe000) >> 13; match->mask.vlan.vlan_priority = (ntohs(ext_m_spec->vlan_tci) & 0xe000) >> 13; + } + if (ext_m_spec->vlan_etype || + ext_m_spec->vlan_tci) { match->dissector.used_keys |= BIT(FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN); match->dissector.offset[FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN] =
When parsing an ethtool flow spec to build a flow_rule, the code checks if both the vlan etype and the vlan tci are specified by the user to add a FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_VLAN match. However, when the user only specified a vlan etype or a vlan tci, this check silently ignores these parameters. For example, the following rule : ethtool -N eth0 flow-type udp4 vlan 0x0010 action -1 loc 0 will result in no error being issued, but the equivalent rule will be created and passed to the NIC driver : ethtool -N eth0 flow-type udp4 action -1 loc 0 In the end, neither the NIC driver using the rule nor the end user have a way to know that these keys were dropped along the way, or that incorrect parameters were entered. This kind of check should be left to either the driver, or the ethtool flow spec layer. This commit makes so that ethtool parameters are forwarded as-is to the NIC driver. Since none of the users of ethtool_rx_flow_rule_create are using the VLAN dissector, I don't think this qualifies as a regression. Fixes: eca4205f9ec3 ("ethtool: add ethtool_rx_flow_spec to flow_rule structure translator") Signed-off-by: Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com> --- This patch was previously sent as : "ethtool: Drop check for vlan etype and vlan tci when parsing flow_rule" Following Pablo's review, we don't drop the check anymore, hence the more fitting subject. net/core/ethtool.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)