Re: [net-next v3 5/8] seg6: add support for the SRv6 End.DT4 behavior

[Andrea Mayer]

Hi Jakub,
thanks for your review.

On Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:40:17 -0800
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:28:53 +0100 Andrea Mayer wrote:
> > +static int cmp_nla_vrftable(struct seg6_local_lwt *a, struct seg6_local_lwt *b)
> > +{
> > +	struct seg6_end_dt_info *info_a = seg6_possible_end_dt_info(a);
> > +	struct seg6_end_dt_info *info_b = seg6_possible_end_dt_info(b);
> > +
> > +	if (IS_ERR(info_a) || IS_ERR(info_b))
> > +		return 1;
> 
> Isn't this impossible? I thought cmp() can only be called on fully
> created lwtunnels and if !CONFIG_NET_L3_MASTER_DEV the tunnel won't 
> be created?
> 

The function cmp_nla_vrftable() can be called only if the lwtunnel is created
successfully.

A SRv6 behavior using a vrftable attribute can be successfully instantiated only
if CONFIG_NET_L3_MASTER_DEV is set. Otherwise (CONFIG_NET_L3_MASTER_DEV not set),
the function parse_nla_vrftable() returns an error (obtained from the
seg6_possible_end_dt_info()) and tunnel creation fails.

The pointer returned from seg6_possible_end_dt_info() depends on
CONFIG_NET_L3_MASTER_DEV. I thought it would be reasonable to check its validity
in functions that make explicit use of seg6_possible_end_dt_info() even in cases
where this was not strictly necessary (i.e: cmp_nla_vrftable()).

Therefore, it turns out to be an impossible case. I can remove these checks in
the next v4.

Thank you,
Andrea

> > +	if (info_a->vrf_table != info_b->vrf_table)
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	return 0;