On 06/01/2016 11:05 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 21:40:23 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
[...]
@@ -400,8 +406,11 @@ static int cls_bpf_modify_existing(struct net *net, struct
tcf_proto *tp,
have_exts = bpf_flags & TCA_BPF_FLAG_ACT_DIRECT;
}
+ if (tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS])
+ gen_flags = nla_get_u32(tb[TCA_BPF_GEN_TCA_FLAGS]);
prog->exts_integrated = have_exts;
+ prog->gen_flags = gen_flags & CLS_BPF_SUPPORTED_GEN_FLAGS;
Invalid flags should probably be rejected here with -EINVAL or something.
Indeed, that would be more in line with what is done for "the other"
flags attribute, but not so much with how flower and u32 handles
flags. I like the stricter approach better, though, so unless someone
speaks up I'll do as you suggest.
If I see this correctly, in patch 4 you're already following up on that
with the tc_flags_valid() check, it's probably okay to leave it as-is then.
