netdev - Re: [PATCH] vlan_dev: VLAN 0 should be treated as "no vlan tag" (802.1p packet)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:42:16 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Pedro Garcia <pedro.netdev@...devamos.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vlan_dev: VLAN 0 should be treated as "no vlan tag" (802.1p
 packet)

Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 16 juin 2010 à 10:49 +0200, Pedro Garcia a écrit :
>> Here it is again. I added the modifications in http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/5/23/6277868 for HW accelerated incoming packets (it did not apply cleanly on the last version of
>> the kernel, so I applied manually). Now, if the VLAN 0 is not explicitly created by the user, VLAN 0 packets will be treated as no VLAN (802.1p packets), instead of dropping them.
>>
>> The patch is now for two files: vlan_core (accel) and vlan_dev (non accel)
>>
>> I can not test on HW accelerated devices, so if someone can check it I will appreciate (even though in the thread above it looked like yes). For non accel I tessted in 2.6.26. Now the patch is for
>> net-next-2.6, and it compiles OK, but I a have to setup a test environment to check it is still OK (should, but better to test).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pedro Garcia <pedro.netdev@...devamos.com>
>>     
>
> OK, the patch itself is correct.
>   

Yes, looks fine to me as well.

> Now, could you please send it again with a proper changelog ?
>
> In this changelog, please explain why patch is needed, and
> keep lines short (< 72 chars), like the one you did in your first mail.
>
> I'll then add my Signed-off-by, since I wrote the accelerated part ;)
>
> Note : I wonder if another patch is needed, in case 8021q module is
> _not_ loaded. We probably should accept vlan 0 frames in this case ?
>   

I agree that this would be best for consistency, but that would mean
adding more special cases to __netif_receive_skb().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html