[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121008191944.GD25288@florz.florz.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 21:19:44 +0200
From: Florian Zumbiehl <florz@...rz.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: kaber@...sh.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jpirko@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vlan: don't deliver frames for unknown vlans to
protocols
Hi,
> But I wonder if it breaks things, since you do the assignment so late
> we no longer handle the case where the VLAN device's MAC address
> matches the packet MAC address and the top-level device's does not.
>
> That's handled by logic in vlan_do_receive() which checks for
> PACKET_OTHERHOST.
>
> But you're going to unconditionally set PACKET_OTHERHOST, overriding
> any decision that code makes.
I don't think that that's actually the case. If vlan_do_receive() reaches
the MAC address check (that is, there is a vlan device for the tag), it
will either clear skb->vlan_tci and return true (which also causes goto
another_round), or return false with a NULL skb, which causes goto out.
The only way to reach the new check without another_round and with a
non-zero tag is the first return false, which happens if there is no device
for the tag, in which case setting PACKET_OTHERHOST should be the right
thing to do (in particular, a non-existent vlan device won't have the
frame's MAC address). I am assuming that rx_handlers don't modify the
frame unless they return RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER.
> This turns out to be a really non-trivial area and it's going to take
> some time to get this right and audit the change appropriately.
I wouldn't want to disagree with that ;-)
Florian
--
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