On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:07:54AM +0000, Shahaf Shuler wrote:
> 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.
Right,
> > 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>
> > ---
>[...]
> > - 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.
Adding it,
> > + 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.
Indeed,
> > }
> > return 0;
> > +error:
> > + rte_errno = ENOTSUP;
> > + return -rte_errno;
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > --
> > 2.17.0
I am making a v2 accordingly.
Thanks,
--
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND
