Hi Nelio,
Wednesday, May 2, 2018 5:43 PM, Nelio Laranjeiro:
> Subject: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix: flow validation
The title is wrong the : after the fix should be removed.
>
> Item spec and last are wrongly compared to the NIC capability causing a
> validation failure when the mask is null.
> This validation function should only verify the user is not configuring
> unsupported matching fields.
>
> Fixes: 2097d0d1e2cc ("net/mlx5: support basic flow items and actions")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranje...@6wind.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 73 +++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> index 129311d50..5d4995783 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> @@ -555,60 +555,31 @@ static int
> mlx5_flow_item_validate(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
> const uint8_t *mask, unsigned int size) {
> - if (!item->spec && (item->mask || item->last)) {
> - rte_errno = EINVAL;
> - return -rte_errno;
> - }
> - if (item->spec && !item->mask) {
> - unsigned int i;
> - const uint8_t *spec = item->spec;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < size; ++i)
> - if ((spec[i] | mask[i]) != mask[i]) {
> - rte_errno = EINVAL;
> - return -rte_errno;
> - }
> - }
> - if (item->last && !item->mask) {
> - unsigned int i;
> - const uint8_t *spec = item->last;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < size; ++i)
> - if ((spec[i] | mask[i]) != mask[i]) {
> - rte_errno = EINVAL;
> - return -rte_errno;
> - }
> - }
> - if (item->mask) {
> - unsigned int i;
> - const uint8_t *spec = item->spec;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < size; ++i)
> - if ((spec[i] | mask[i]) != mask[i]) {
> - rte_errno = EINVAL;
> - return -rte_errno;
> - }
> - }
> - if (item->spec && item->last) {
> - uint8_t spec[size];
> - uint8_t last[size];
> - const uint8_t *apply = mask;
> - unsigned int i;
> - int ret;
> + unsigned int i;
> + const uint8_t *spec = item->spec;
> + const uint8_t *last = item->last;
> + const uint8_t *m = item->mask ? item->mask : mask;
>
> - if (item->mask)
> - apply = item->mask;
> - for (i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
> - spec[i] = ((const uint8_t *)item->spec)[i] & apply[i];
> - last[i] = ((const uint8_t *)item->last)[i] & apply[i];
> - }
> - ret = memcmp(spec, last, size);
> - if (ret != 0) {
> - rte_errno = EINVAL;
> - return -rte_errno;
> - }
> + if (!spec && (item->mask || last))
> + goto error;
> + if (!spec)
> + return 0;
> + for (i = 0; i < size; i++) {
I think inline comment which explains what each code section below verifies
would much help.
> + if (spec)
> + if (((spec[i] & m[i]) | mask[i]) != mask[i])
> + goto error;
Am wondering.
Which the below check of m ...
> + if (last)
> + if ((((last[i] & m[i]) | mask[i]) != mask[i]) ||
> + ((spec[i] & m[i]) != (last[i] & m[i])))
> + goto error;
> + if (m)
> + if ((m[i] | mask[i]) != mask[i])
> + goto error;
Do we really need to spec check?
Meaning if above one passes it is guarantee m is contained in mask. And if so,
then the spec check will always succeed.
> }
> return 0;
> +error:
> + rte_errno = ENOTSUP;
> + return -rte_errno;
> }
>
> /**
> --
> 2.17.0
