Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:06:39PM CEST, pab...@redhat.com wrote:
>Only cls_bpf and act_bpf can safely use such value. If a generic
>action is configured by user space to return TC_ACT_REDIRECT,
>the usually visible behavior is passing the skb up the stack - as
>for unknown action, but, with complex configuration, more random
>results can be obtained.
>
>This patch forcefully converts TC_ACT_REDIRECT to TC_ACT_UNSPEC
>at action init time, making the kernel behavior more consistent.
>
>v1 -> v3: use TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead of a newly definied act value
>
>Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com>
>---
> net/sched/act_api.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
>index 148a89ab789b..24b5534967fe 100644
>--- a/net/sched/act_api.c
>+++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
>@@ -895,6 +895,11 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net,
>struct tcf_proto *tp,
> }
> }
>
>+ if (a->tcfa_action == TC_ACT_REDIRECT) {
>+ net_warn_ratelimited("TC_ACT_REDIRECT can't be used directly");
Can't you push this warning through extack?
But, wouldn't it be more appropriate to fail here? User is passing
invalid configuration....
>+ a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
>+ }
>+
> return a;
>
> err_mod:
>--
>2.17.1
>
