net_sched: reject unknown tcfa_action values
After the commit802bfb1915
("net/sched: user-space can't set unknown tcfa_action values"), unknown tcfa_action values are converted to TC_ACT_UNSPEC, but the common agreement is instead rejecting such configurations. This change also introduces a helper to simplify the destruction of a single action, avoiding code duplication. v1 -> v2: - helper is now static and renamed according to act_* convention - updated extack message, according to the new behavior Fixes:802bfb1915
("net/sched: user-space can't set unknown tcfa_action values") Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> Acked-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@mellanox.com> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
c4053ef322
commit
97763dc0f4
@ -662,6 +662,13 @@ int tcf_action_destroy(struct tc_action *actions[], int bind)
|
||||
return ret;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static int tcf_action_destroy_1(struct tc_action *a, int bind)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct tc_action *actions[] = { a, NULL };
|
||||
|
||||
return tcf_action_destroy(actions, bind);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static int tcf_action_put(struct tc_action *p)
|
||||
{
|
||||
return __tcf_action_put(p, false);
|
||||
@ -881,17 +888,16 @@ struct tc_action *tcf_action_init_1(struct net *net, struct tcf_proto *tp,
|
||||
if (TC_ACT_EXT_CMP(a->tcfa_action, TC_ACT_GOTO_CHAIN)) {
|
||||
err = tcf_action_goto_chain_init(a, tp);
|
||||
if (err) {
|
||||
struct tc_action *actions[] = { a, NULL };
|
||||
|
||||
tcf_action_destroy(actions, bind);
|
||||
tcf_action_destroy_1(a, bind);
|
||||
NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Failed to init TC action chain");
|
||||
return ERR_PTR(err);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (!tcf_action_valid(a->tcfa_action)) {
|
||||
NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "invalid action value, using TC_ACT_UNSPEC instead");
|
||||
a->tcfa_action = TC_ACT_UNSPEC;
|
||||
tcf_action_destroy_1(a, bind);
|
||||
NL_SET_ERR_MSG(extack, "Invalid control action value");
|
||||
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
return a;
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user