From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 130ABC3815B for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:14:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C20206F9 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 07:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2441108AbgDOHOv (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 03:14:51 -0400 Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([62.96.220.36]:44066 "EHLO a.mx.secunet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390559AbgDOHOs (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Apr 2020 03:14:48 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D6920523; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:45 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by secunet Received: from a.mx.secunet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (a.mx.secunet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fxox8BtjGctA; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from cas-essen-01.secunet.de (201.40.53.10.in-addr.arpa [10.53.40.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a.mx.secunet.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA7212009B; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) by cas-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:44 +0200 Received: from gauss2.secunet.de (10.182.7.193) by mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:44 +0200 Received: by gauss2.secunet.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B2B4D31801EC; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:43 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:43 +0200 From: Steffen Klassert To: Yuehaibing CC: , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] xfrm: policy: Remove obsolete WARN while xfrm policy inserting Message-ID: <20200415071443.GV13121@gauss3.secunet.de> References: <20200327123443.12408-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com> <20200328112302.GA13121@gauss3.secunet.de> <1d3596fb-c7e3-16c9-f48f-fe58e9a2569a@huawei.com> <20200406090327.GF13121@gauss3.secunet.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-ClientProxiedBy: cas-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.201) To mbx-essen-01.secunet.de (10.53.40.197) X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 2c86f778-e09b-4440-8b15-867914633a10 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.