[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801031115.34886.paul.moore@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:15:34 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To: hadi@...erus.ca, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk_buff->iif field properly
On Thursday 03 January 2008 6:23:22 am jamal wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-01 at 10:58 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> > On 02-01-2008 17:01, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > This patch is needed by some of the labeled networking changes
> > > proposed for 2.6.25, does anyone have any objections?
> >
> > Probably Jamal could be the most interested (added to CC):
>
> Gracias Jarek.
> Paul, (out of curiosity more than anything) what are the
> circumstances of the cloned skb - are you going to reinject it back
> at some point?
>
> I cant think of any good reason why iif shouldnt be copied - thats
> how its been from the begining (dammit;->). The reason it hasnt
> mattered so far is everything that needs to write the iif never
> copied (refer to Documentation/networking/tc-actions-env-rules.txt).
> For correctness i think it should be copied. So no objections;
> The better patch would be to just put it in skb_clone and remove it
> from tc_act_clone.
While I'm at it, is there some reason for this #define in __skb_clone()?
#define C(x) n->x = skb->x
... it seems kinda silly to me and I tend to think the code would be
better without it.
--
paul moore
linux security @ hp
--
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