On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mark Michelson <mmich...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 6/23/20 11:08 AM, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> > On 6/23/20 4:56 PM, Mark Michelson wrote:
> >> Acked-by: Mark Michelson <mmich...@redhat.com>
>
Thanks Dumitru and Mark (for the reviews).
I applied this patch to master with the below changes in the tests/ovn.at.
I was just playing around
how the patch works and thought we could add this to the test.
diff --git a/tests/ovn.at b/tests/ovn.at
index de62f3883..6587fd8ff 100644
--- a/tests/ovn.at
+++ b/tests/ovn.at
@@ -112,6 +112,9 @@ a/b => a error("`/' is only valid as part of `//' or
`/*'.") b
192.168.0.0/255.0.0.0 => 192.0.0.0/8
192.168.0.0/32
192.168.0.0/255.255.255.255 => 192.168.0.0/32
+192.168.0.2/32
+192.168.0.2/30 => 192.168.0.0/30
+192.168.0.2/24 => 192.168.0.0/24
1.2.3.4:5 => 1.2.3.4 : 5
::
Thanks
Numan
>>
> >
> > Thanks Mark for the review.
> >
> >> I was going to suggest printing an informational message if the value
> >> gets truncated. However, given the way the lexer works, it's not as
> >> simple as just printing a message when you encounter the situation. If
> >> we were to add informational messages to the lexer, that should be a
> >> separate (and very low-priority) patch.
> >
> > I was looking into that too but couldn't find a not-so-intrusive and
> > clean way to do it. Do you have any suggestions? I can try to send a
> > follow up patch if we think it's worth it.
>
> I gave it about 30 seconds of thought and couldn't think of anything
> non-intrusive either. I also have to admit I don't have a ton of
> experience in the lexer code, so it would take some research to figure
> out a good way to change this.
>
> I don't think it's worth following up immediately with a separate patch.
> I think this gets filed into our "it would be nice to have" pile.
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dumitru
> >
> >>
> >> On 6/23/20 4:17 AM, Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> >>> It's quite restrictive to not accept ACLs/policies that match on a CIDR
> >>> that has non-zero host bits. Right now this generates a lexer error
> that
> >>> can only be detected in the logs.
> >>>
> >>> There's no real harm in automatically zero-ing the unmasked bits.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1812820
> >>> Reported-by: Ying Xu <yi...@redhat.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dumitru Ceara <dce...@redhat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> lib/lex.c | 10 ++--------
> >>> tests/ovn.at | 8 ++++----
> >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/lib/lex.c b/lib/lex.c
> >>> index 94f6c77..4d92199 100644
> >>> --- a/lib/lex.c
> >>> +++ b/lib/lex.c
> >>> @@ -485,16 +485,10 @@ lex_parse_mask(const char *p, struct lex_token
> >>> *token)
> >>> return p;
> >>> }
> >>> - /* Check invariant that a 1-bit in the value corresponds to a
> >>> 1-bit in the
> >>> + /* Apply invariant that a 1-bit in the value corresponds to a
> >>> 1-bit in the
> >>> * mask. */
> >>> for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(token->mask.be32); i++) {
> >>> - ovs_be32 v = token->value.be32[i];
> >>> - ovs_be32 m = token->mask.be32[i];
> >>> -
> >>> - if (v & ~m) {
> >>> - lex_error(token, "Value contains unmasked 1-bits.");
> >>> - break;
> >>> - }
> >>> + token->value.be32[i] &= token->mask.be32[i];
> >>> }
> >>> /* Done! */
> >>> diff --git a/tests/ovn.at b/tests/ovn.at
> >>> index 1ff7952..0c0daed 100644
> >>> --- a/tests/ovn.at
> >>> +++ b/tests/ovn.at
> >>> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ a/b => a error("`/' is only valid as part of `//' or
> >>> `/*'.") b
> >>> 0/0
> >>> 0/1
> >>> -1/0 => error("Value contains unmasked 1-bits.")
> >>> +1/0 => 0/0
> >>> 1/1
> >>> 128/384
> >>> 1/3
> >>> @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ a/b => a error("`/' is only valid as part of `//' or
> >>> `/*'.") b
> >>> 0X => error("Hex digits expected following 0X.")
> >>> 0x0/0x0 => 0/0
> >>> 0x0/0x1 => 0/0x1
> >>> -0x1/0x0 => error("Value contains unmasked 1-bits.")
> >>> +0x1/0x0 => 0/0
> >>> 0xffff/0x1ffff
> >>> 0x. => error("Invalid syntax in hexadecimal constant.")
> >>> @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ a/b => a error("`/' is only valid as part of
> >>> `//' or `/*'.") b
> >>> 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0 => 192.168.0.0/16
> >>> 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 => 192.168.0.0/24
> >>> 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.255
> >>> -192.168.0.0/255.0.0.0 => error("Value contains unmasked 1-bits.")
> >>> +192.168.0.0/255.0.0.0 => 192.0.0.0/8
> >>> 192.168.0.0/32
> >>> 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.255 => 192.168.0.0/32
> >>> 1.2.3.4:5 => 1.2.3.4 : 5
> >>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ FE:DC:ba:98:76:54 => fe:dc:ba:98:76:54
> >>> 01:00:00:00:00:00/01:00:00:00:00:00
> >>> ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff/ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> >>> fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff/ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> >>> -ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff/fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff => error("Value contains unmasked
> >>> 1-bits.")
> >>> +ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff/fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff =>
> >>> fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff/fe:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> >>> fe:x => error("Invalid numeric constant.")
> >>> 00:01:02:03:04:x => error("Invalid numeric constant.")
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> d...@openvswitch.org
> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
