[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B4E378A.7040506@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:13:46 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions
I did today's tests on tcp_ipv4, but part of this harmonization is to
make v4 and v6 match up better. As I was examining line by line, one of
the things that leaps out is that ipv4 has nf_reset(skb):
tcp_ipv4:
if (!xfrm4_policy_check(sk, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
goto discard_and_relse;
nf_reset(skb);
if (sk_filter(sk, skb))
goto discard_and_relse;
tcp_ipv6:
if (!xfrm6_policy_check(sk, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb))
goto discard_and_relse;
if (sk_filter(sk, skb))
goto discard_and_relse;
Does anybody know why? Should ipv6 have it? Or at least a comment
explaining the reasoning for the omission?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists