From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [RFC 03/12] net: cls_bpf: limit hardware offload by software-only flag Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 23:21:40 +0200 Message-ID: <574F51E4.2020504@iogearbox.net> References: <1464799814-4453-1-git-send-email-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <1464799814-4453-4-git-send-email-jakub.kicinski@netronome.com> <574F3A27.5050208@iogearbox.net> <20160601220520.717fb5f8@jkicinski-Precision-T1700> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, dinan.gunawardena@netronome.com To: Jakub Kicinski Return-path: Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:35035 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751001AbcFAVVn (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:21:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160601220520.717fb5f8@jkicinski-Precision-T1700> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/01/2016 11:05 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:40:23 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: [...] >>> @@ -400,8 +406,11 @@ static int cls_bpf_modify_existing(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp, >>> >>> have_exts = bpf_flags & TCA_BPF_FLAG_ACT_DIRECT; >>> } >>> + if (tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS]) >>> + gen_flags = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS]); >>> >>> prog->exts_integrated = have_exts; >>> + prog->gen_flags = gen_flags & CLS_BPF_SUPPORTED_GEN_FLAGS; >> >> Invalid flags should probably be rejected here with -EINVAL or something. > > Indeed, that would be more in line with what is done for "the other" > flags attribute, but not so much with how flower and u32 handles > flags. I like the stricter approach better, though, so unless someone > speaks up I'll do as you suggest. If I see this correctly, in patch 4 you're already following up on that with the tc_flags_valid() check, it's probably okay to leave it as-is then.