net/sched: user-space can't set unknown tcfa_action values
Currently, when initializing an action, the user-space can specify and use arbitrary values for the tcfa_action field. If the value is unknown by the kernel, is implicitly threaded as TC_ACT_UNSPEC. This change explicitly checks for unknown values at action creation time, and explicitly convert them to TC_ACT_UNSPEC. No functional changes are introduced, but this will allow introducing tcfa_action values not exposed to user-space in a later patch. Note: we can't use the above to hide TC_ACT_REDIRECT from user-space, as the latter is already part of uAPI. v3 -> v4: - use an helper to check for action validity (JiriP) - emit an extack for invalid actions (JiriP) v4 -> v5: - keep messages on a single line, drop net_warn (Marcelo) Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
c87fffc57a
commit
802bfb1915
2 changed files with 18 additions and 2 deletions
|
@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ enum {
|
|||
* the skb and act like everything
|
||||
* is alright.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_VALUE_MAX TC_ACT_TRAP
|
||||
|
||||
/* There is a special kind of actions called "extended actions",
|
||||
* which need a value parameter. These have a local opcode located in
|
||||
|
@ -55,11 +56,12 @@ enum {
|
|||
#define __TC_ACT_EXT_SHIFT 28
|
||||
#define __TC_ACT_EXT(local) ((local) << __TC_ACT_EXT_SHIFT)
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_EXT_VAL_MASK ((1 << __TC_ACT_EXT_SHIFT) - 1)
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_EXT_CMP(combined, opcode) \
|
||||
(((combined) & (~TC_ACT_EXT_VAL_MASK)) == opcode)
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE(combined) ((combined) & (~TC_ACT_EXT_VAL_MASK))
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_EXT_CMP(combined, opcode) (TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE(combined) == opcode)
|
||||
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_JUMP __TC_ACT_EXT(1)
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN __TC_ACT_EXT(2)
|
||||
#define TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE_MAX TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN
|
||||
|
||||
/* Action type identifiers*/
|
||||
enum {
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -786,6 +786,15 @@ static struct tc_cookie *nla_memdup_cookie(struct nlattr **tb)
|
|||
return c;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static bool tcf_action_valid(int action)
|
||||
{
|
||||
int opcode = TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE(action);
|
||||
|
||||
if (!opcode)
|
||||
return action <= TC_ACT_VALUE_MAX;
|
||||
return opcode <= TC_ACT_EXT_OPCODE_MAX || action == TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp,
|
||||
struct nlattr *nla, struct nlattr *est,
|
||||
char *name, int ovr, int bind,
|
||||
|
@ -895,6 +904,11 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp,
|
|||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
|
||||
NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead");
|
||||
a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return a;
|
||||
|
||||
err_mod:
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue