Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/mlx5: improve validation of item order

[Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:46
> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler
> <shahafs@mellanox.com>; Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH v2] net/mlx5: improve validation of item order
> 
> The Item order validation between L2 and L3 is missing, which leading to the
> following flow rule is accepted:
> 
>   testpmd> flow create 0 ingress pattern ipv4 / eth / end actions drop /
>            end
> 
> Only the outer L3 layer should check whether the L2 layer is present, because
> the L3 layer could directly follow the tunnel layer without L2 layer.
> 
> Meanwhile inner L2 layer should check whether there is inner L3 layer before
> it.
> 
> Fixes: 23c1d42c7138 ("net/mlx5: split flow validation to dedicated function")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>

> ---
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> index eb360525da..45bd9c8025 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> @@ -1224,6 +1224,11 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_eth(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
>  		return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
>  					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
>  					  "multiple L2 layers not supported");
> +	if (tunnel && (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L3))
> +		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> +					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> +					  "inner L2 layer should not "
> +					  "follow inner L3 layers");
>  	if (!mask)
>  		mask = &rte_flow_item_eth_mask;
>  	ret = mlx5_flow_item_acceptable(item, (const uint8_t *)mask, @@ -
> 1270,6 +1275,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vlan(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
>  	const uint64_t vlanm = tunnel ? MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_VLAN :
>  					MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_VLAN;
> 
> +	const uint64_t l2m = tunnel ? MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L2 :
> +				      MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L2;
>  	if (item_flags & vlanm)
>  		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>  					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> @@ -1278,6 +1285,10 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vlan(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
>  		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>  					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
>  					  "L2 layer cannot follow L3/L4
> layer");
> +	else if ((item_flags & l2m) == 0)
> +		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> +					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> +					  "no L2 layer before VLAN");
>  	if (!mask)
>  		mask = &rte_flow_item_vlan_mask;
>  	ret = mlx5_flow_item_acceptable(item, (const uint8_t *)mask, @@ -
> 1390,6 +1401,10 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_ipv4(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
>  		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>  					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
>  					  "L3 cannot follow an NVGRE
> layer.");
> +	else if (!tunnel && !(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L2))
> +		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> +					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> +					  "no L2 layer before IPV4");
>  	if (!mask)
>  		mask = &rte_flow_item_ipv4_mask;
>  	else if (mask->hdr.next_proto_id != 0 && @@ -1481,6 +1496,10 @@
> mlx5_flow_validate_item_ipv6(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
>  		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>  					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
>  					  "L3 cannot follow an NVGRE
> layer.");
> +	else if (!tunnel && !(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L2))
> +		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> +					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> +					  "no L2 layer before IPV6");
>  	if (!mask)
>  		mask = &rte_flow_item_ipv6_mask;
>  	ret = mlx5_flow_item_acceptable(item, (const uint8_t *)mask,
> --
> 2.23.0