From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: passt-dev@passt.top, Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Cc: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: [PATCH v3 10/11] fwd_rule: Move conflict checking back within fwd_rule_add()
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2026 15:05:19 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260417050520.102247-11-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260417050520.102247-1-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
2bffb631d31e ("fwd_rule: Move rule conflict checking from fwd_rule_add()
to caller") moved rule conflict checking out of fwd_rule_add(). This
seemed like a good idea at the time, but turns out to be kind of awkward:
it means we're now checking for conflicts *before* we've checked the rule
for internal consistency (including first <= last), which leaves an awkward
assert() which might fire in unexpected places.
While it's true that it's not really necessary to include this in order to
safely add a rule, the benefits from skipping it are pretty marginal. So,
for simplicity, fold this check back into fwd_rule_add(), making it
non-fatal. If we ever have cases with enough rules that the O(n^2) nature
of the check matters, we might need to revisit.
Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
---
fwd_rule.c | 38 +++++++++++++-------------------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fwd_rule.c b/fwd_rule.c
index 7bba2602..cb462401 100644
--- a/fwd_rule.c
+++ b/fwd_rule.c
@@ -195,29 +195,6 @@ static bool fwd_rule_conflicts(const struct fwd_rule *a, const struct fwd_rule *
return true;
}
-/**
- * fwd_rule_conflict_check() - Die if given rule conflicts with any in list
- * @new: New rule
- * @rules: Existing rules against which to test
- * @count: Number of rules in @rules
- */
-static void fwd_rule_conflict_check(const struct fwd_rule *new,
- const struct fwd_rule *rules, size_t count)
-{
- unsigned i;
-
- for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
- char newstr[FWD_RULE_STRLEN], rulestr[FWD_RULE_STRLEN];
-
- if (!fwd_rule_conflicts(new, &rules[i]))
- continue;
-
- die("Forwarding configuration conflict: %s versus %s",
- fwd_rule_fmt(new, newstr, sizeof(newstr)),
- fwd_rule_fmt(&rules[i], rulestr, sizeof(rulestr)));
- }
-}
-
/**
* fwd_rule_add() - Validate and add a rule to a forwarding table
* @fwd: Table to add to
@@ -230,7 +207,7 @@ static int fwd_rule_add(struct fwd_table *fwd, const struct fwd_rule *new)
/* Flags which can be set from the caller */
const uint8_t allowed_flags = FWD_WEAK | FWD_SCAN | FWD_DUAL_STACK_ANY;
unsigned num = (unsigned)new->last - new->first + 1;
- unsigned port;
+ unsigned port, i;
if (new->first > new->last) {
warn("Rule has invalid port range %u-%u",
@@ -292,6 +269,18 @@ static int fwd_rule_add(struct fwd_table *fwd, const struct fwd_rule *new)
return -EINVAL;
}
+ for (i = 0; i < fwd->count; i++) {
+ char newstr[FWD_RULE_STRLEN], rulestr[FWD_RULE_STRLEN];
+
+ if (!fwd_rule_conflicts(new, &fwd->rules[i]))
+ continue;
+
+ warn("Forwarding configuration conflict: %s versus %s",
+ fwd_rule_fmt(new, newstr, sizeof(newstr)),
+ fwd_rule_fmt(&fwd->rules[i], rulestr, sizeof(rulestr)));
+ return -EEXIST;
+ }
+
if (fwd->count >= ARRAY_SIZE(fwd->rules)) {
warn("Too many rules (maximum %u)", ARRAY_SIZE(fwd->rules));
return -ENOSPC;
@@ -436,7 +425,6 @@ static void fwd_rule_range_except(struct fwd_table *fwd, uint8_t proto,
rule.last = i - 1;
rule.to = base + delta;
- fwd_rule_conflict_check(&rule, fwd->rules, fwd->count);
if (fwd_rule_add(fwd, &rule) < 0)
goto fail;
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-17 5:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-17 5:05 [PATCH v3 00/11] Rework forwarding option parsing David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 01/11] doc: Rework man page description of port specifiers David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 02/11] conf: Move "all" handling to port specifier David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 03/11] conf: Allow user-specified auto-scanned port forwarding ranges David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 04/11] conf: Move SO_BINDTODEVICE workaround to conf_ports() David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 05/11] conf: Don't pass raw commandline argument to conf_ports_spec() David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 06/11] fwd, conf: Add capabilities bits to each forwarding table David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 07/11] conf, fwd: Stricter rule checking in fwd_rule_add() David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 08/11] fwd_rule: Move ephemeral port probing to fwd_rule.c David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 09/11] fwd, conf: Move rule parsing code to fwd_rule.[ch] David Gibson
2026-04-17 5:05 ` David Gibson [this message]
2026-04-17 5:05 ` [PATCH v3 11/11] fwd: Generalise fwd_rules_info() David Gibson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260417050520.102247-11-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
--cc=sbrivio@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://passt.top/passt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for IMAP folder(s).