Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:43 +0200 | From | Steffen Klassert <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: policy: Remove obsolete WARN while xfrm policy inserting |
| |
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 04:19:37PM +0800, Yuehaibing wrote: > > > On 2020/4/6 17:03, Steffen Klassert wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:05:32PM +0800, Yuehaibing wrote: > >> On 2020/3/28 19:23, Steffen Klassert wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 08:34:43PM +0800, YueHaibing wrote: > >>>> Since commit 7cb8a93968e3 ("xfrm: Allow inserting policies with matching > >>>> mark and different priorities"), we allow duplicate policies with > >>>> different priority, this WARN is not needed any more. > >>> > >>> Can you please describe a bit more detailed why this warning > >>> can't trigger anymore? > >> > >> No, this warning is triggered while detect a duplicate entry in the policy list > >> > >> regardless of the priority. If we insert policy like this: > >> > >> policy A (mark.v = 3475289, mark.m = 0, priority = 1) //A is inserted > >> policy B (mark.v = 0, mark.m = 0, priority = 0) //B is inserted > >> policy C (mark.v = 3475289, mark.m = 0, priority = 0) //C is inserted and B is deleted > > > > The codepath that replaces a policy by another should just trigger > > on policy updates (XFRM_MSG_UPDPOLICY). Is that the case in your > > test? > > Yes, this is triggered by XFRM_MSG_UPDPOLICY > > > > > It should not be possible to add policy C with XFRM_MSG_NEWPOLICY > > as long as you have policy B inserted. > > > > The update replaces an old policy by a new one, the lookup keys of > > the old policy must match the lookup keys of the new one. But policy > > B has not the same lookup keys as C, the mark is different. So B should > > not be replaced with C. > > 1436 static bool xfrm_policy_mark_match(struct xfrm_policy *policy, > 1437 struct xfrm_policy *pol) > 1438 { > 1439 u32 mark = policy->mark.v & policy->mark.m; > 1440 > 1441 if (policy->mark.v == pol->mark.v && policy->mark.m == pol->mark.m) > 1442 return true; > 1443 > 1444 if ((mark & pol->mark.m) == pol->mark.v && //policy is C, pol is B, so mark is 0, pol->mark.m is 0, pol->mark.v is 0 > 1445 policy->priority == pol->priority) //priority is same zero, so return true, B is replaced with C > 1446 return true; > 1447 > 1448 return false; > 1449 } > > Should xfrm_policy_mark_match be fixed?
Yes, xfrm_policy_mark_match should only replace if the found policy has the same lookup keys.
| |