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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 21:48:12 +0200 From: Nicolas de Pesloüan <nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com> To: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com> CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net, Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vlan: Do not support clearing VLAN_FLAG_REORDER_HDR Le 23/05/2011 12:43, Jiri Pirko a écrit : > Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:41:22AM CEST, ebiederm@...ssion.com wrote: >> Changli Gao<xiaosuo@...il.com> writes: >> >>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Eric W. Biederman >>> <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote: >>>>> In another side, is there a specification which defines the >>>>> hw-accel-vlan-rx? >>>> >>>> I don't know. >>>> >>>> I have just been trying to clean up the mess since some of the >>>> hw-accel-vlan code broke my use case, by delivering packets with >>>> priority but no vlan (aka vlan 0 packets) twice to my pf_packet sockets. >>>> >>> >>> OK. But if we have decided to simulate the hw-accel-vlan-rx, I think >>> we'd better adjust the place where we put the emulation code. The very >>> beginnings of netif_rx() and neif_receive_skb() are better. Then rps >>> can support vlan packets without any change. >> >> That sounds nice. Patches are welcome. >> >> In principle it should be doable with some code motion. I don't think >> moving vlan_untag earlier constitutes a bug fix. > > I do not think that is doable. Consider multi tagged packets. The place > just after "another_round" takes care about that. > > Btw what's the rationale to move untag to earlier position? Maybe simply because we try to mimic hw-accel, and hw-accel untagging definitely happens before we enter __netif_receive_skb and only happens once. So having software untagging inside the __netif_receive_skb loop looks different. Nicolas. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists