On 12/2/25 9:55 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 01:35:38PM -0600, Daniel Jurgens wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> @@ -6005,6 +6085,11 @@ static void parse_ip4(struct iphdr *mask, struct
>> iphdr *key,
>> mask->tos = l3_mask->tos;
>> key->tos = l3_val->tos;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (l3_mask->proto) {
>> + mask->protocol = l3_mask->proto;
>> + key->protocol = l3_val->proto;
>> + }
>> }
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Claude Code with review-prompts flags an issue here,
> which I can't convince myself is not the case.
>
> If parse_ip4() is called for a IP_USER_FLOW, which use ethtool_usrip4_spec,
> as does this function, then all is well.
>
> However, it seems that it may also be called for TCP_V4_FLOW and UDP_V4_FLOW
> flows, in which case accessing .proto will overrun the mask and key which
> are actually struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec.
>
> https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/ai-review.html?id=51d97b85-5ca3-4cb8-a96a-0d6eab5e7196#patch-10
Yes, you're right. Since I'm setting those fields explicitly based on
numhdrs I can just remove this.
>
>>
>> static void parse_ip6(struct ipv6hdr *mask, struct ipv6hdr *key,
>> @@ -6022,16 +6107,35 @@ static void parse_ip6(struct ipv6hdr *mask, struct
>> ipv6hdr *key,
>> memcpy(&mask->daddr, l3_mask->ip6dst, sizeof(mask->daddr));
>> memcpy(&key->daddr, l3_val->ip6dst, sizeof(key->daddr));
>> }
>> +
>> + if (l3_mask->l4_proto) {
>> + mask->nexthdr = l3_mask->l4_proto;
>> + key->nexthdr = l3_val->l4_proto;
>> + }
>
> Likewise here.
>
>> }
>
> ...
