lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: sched: drr: dont intepret cls results when asked to drop
From


On 15/09/2023 19:55, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:06 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 5:03 PM Pedro Tammela <pctammela@mojatatu.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 15/09/2023 09:55, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:42 PM Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If asked to drop a packet via TC_ACT_SHOT it is unsafe to
>>>>> assume res.class contains a valid pointer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@163.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> net/sched/sch_drr.c | 2 ++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_drr.c b/net/sched/sch_drr.c
>>>>> index 19901e77cd3b..2b854cb6edf9 100644
>>>>> --- a/net/sched/sch_drr.c
>>>>> +++ b/net/sched/sch_drr.c
>>>>> @@ -309,6 +309,8 @@ static struct drr_class *drr_classify(struct sk_buff *skb, struct Qdisc *sch,
>>>>> *qerr = NET_XMIT_SUCCESS | __NET_XMIT_BYPASS;
>>>>> fl = rcu_dereference_bh(q->filter_list);
>>>>> result = tcf_classify(skb, NULL, fl, &res, false);
>>>>> + if (result == TC_ACT_SHOT)
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>> if (result >= 0) {
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT
>>>>> switch (result) {
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.37.2
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not see a bug, TC_ACT_SHOT is handled in the switch (result) just fine
>>>> at line 320 ?
>>>
>>> Following the code path (with CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT=n in mind), it looks
>>> like there are a couple of places which return TC_ACT_SHOT before
>>> calling any classifiers, which then would cause some qdiscs to look into
>>> a uninitialized 'struct tcf_result res'.
>>> I could be misreading it... But if it's the problem the author is trying
>>> to fix, the obvious way to do it would be:
>>> struct tcf_result res = {};
>>
>> CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT=n, how come TC_ACT_SHOT could be used ?
>>
>> Can we get rid of CONFIG_NET_CLS_ACT, this seems obfuscation to me at
>> this point.
>
> The problem is the verdict vs return code are intermixed - not saying
> this was fixing anything useful.
> We discussed this in the past after/during commit
> caa4b35b4317d5147b3ab0fbdc9c075c7d2e9c12
> Victor worked on a patch to resolve that. Victor, maybe revive that
> patch and post as RFC?

Okk, will review, rebase on top of net-next and post.

cheers,
Victor

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-09-16 00:59    [W:0.047 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site