Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.160 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.160; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
References: <20221028100320.786984-1-daniel.machon@microchip.com>
 <20221028100320.786984-3-daniel.machon@microchip.com>
 <87k04gw54m.fsf@nvidia.com> <Y1/F5n+geZHAitoW@DEN-LT-70577>
User-agent: mu4e 1.6.6; emacs 28.1
From:   Petr Machata <petrm@nvidia.com>
To:     <Daniel.Machon@microchip.com>
CC:     <petrm@nvidia.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        <davem@davemloft.net>, <maxime.chevallier@bootlin.com>,
        <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>, <edumazet@google.com>,
        <kuba@kernel.org>, <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        <Lars.Povlsen@microchip.com>, <Steen.Hegelund@microchip.com>,
        <UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com>, <joe@perches.com>,
        <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, <Horatiu.Vultur@microchip.com>,
        <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>, <vladimir.oltean@nxp.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/6] net: dcb: add new apptrust attribute
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2022 17:24:32 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Y1/F5n+geZHAitoW@DEN-LT-70577>
Message-ID: <87pme8ufjg.fsf@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Oct 2022 16:25:08.8367
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 05852c51-de98-4cbe-85eb-08dabb5c7a48
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.160];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT078.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR12MB4516
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE
        autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


<Daniel.Machon@microchip.com> writes:

>> > +     if (ieee[DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST_TABLE]) {
>> > +             u8 selectors[IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_MAX + 1] = {0};
>> > +             struct nlattr *attr;
>> > +             int nselectors = 0;
>> > +             u8 selector;
>> > +             int rem, i;
>> > +
>> > +             if (!ops->dcbnl_setapptrust) {
>> > +                     err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> > +                     goto err;
>> > +             }
>> > +
>> > +             nla_for_each_nested(attr, ieee[DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST_TABLE],
>> > +                                 rem) {
>> > +                     if (nla_type(attr) != DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST ||
>> > +                         nla_len(attr) != 1 ||
>> > +                         nselectors >= sizeof(selectors)) {
>> > +                             err = -EINVAL;
>> > +                             goto err;
>> > +                     }
>> > +
>> > +                     selector = nla_get_u8(attr);
>> > +                     switch (selector) {
>> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_ETHERTYPE:
>> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_STREAM:
>> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_DGRAM:
>> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_ANY:
>> > +                     case IEEE_8021QAZ_APP_SEL_DSCP:
>> > +                     case DCB_APP_SEL_PCP:
>> 
>> This assumes that the range of DCB attributes will never overlap with
>> the range of IEEE attributes. Wasn't the original reason for introducing
>> the DCB nest to not have to make this assumption?
>> 
>> I.e. now that we split DCB and IEEE attributes in the APP_TABLE
>> attribute, shouldn't it be done here as well?
>
> Hmm, doesn't hurt to do strict checking here as well. We can even get rid
> of the DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP_TRUST attr and just pass DCB_ATTR_DCB_APP and
> DCB_ATTR_IEEE_APP? Then use the same functions to do the checking.

That would make sense to me.