[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADxym3Yy1hK7g670zW__yZUmtyH-aKYnckeJfGfKTDReopEgdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:43:25 +0800
From: Menglong Dong <menglong8.dong@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Talal Ahmad <talalahmad@...gle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>,
Hao Peng <flyingpeng@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 5/9] net: tcp: make tcp_rcv_state_process()
return drop reason
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 4:56 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 8:45 PM <menglong8.dong@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> >
> > For now, the return value of tcp_rcv_state_process() is treated as bool.
> > Therefore, we can make it return the reasons of the skb drops.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the return value of tcp_child_process() comes from
> > tcp_rcv_state_process(), make it drop reasons by the way.
> >
> > The new drop reason SKB_DROP_REASON_TCP_LINGER is added for skb dropping
> > out of TCP linger.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...cent.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Hao Peng <flyingpeng@...cent.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
> > v3:
> > - instead SKB_DROP_REASON_TCP_ABORTONDATA with SKB_DROP_REASON_TCP_LINGER
> > ---
> > include/net/dropreason.h | 6 ++++++
> > include/net/tcp.h | 8 +++++---
> > net/ipv4/tcp_input.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> > net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c | 11 ++++++-----
> > net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
> > 6 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> >
>
> I am sorry, this patch is too invasive, and will make future bug fix
> backports a real nightmare.
Is there any advice to save this patch? Or should we just skip this
part (for now) ?
Thanks!
Menglong Dong
Powered by blists - more mailing lists