netdev - Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200804222245.53322.tomasz@grobelny.oswiecenia.net>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:45:53 +0200
From:	Tomasz Grobelny <tomasz@...belny.oswiecenia.net>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Gerrit Renker <gerrit@....abdn.ac.uk>, dccp@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [DCCP] [RFC] [Patchv2 1/1]: Queuing policies -- reworked version of Tomasz's patch set

Dnia Tuesday 22 of April 2008, napisałeś:
> Tomasz Grobelny wrote:
> > Dnia Monday 21 of April 2008, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo napisał:
> >> Nod, if we don't need the space reserved for the lower layer protocols
> >> in DCCP it is actually the best solution, as we don't need to zero the
> >> cb again before passing it to IP, it gets zeroed at alloc_skb time and
> >> that is it. If we need the space, we have to pay the price of
> >> memset before passing to IP.
> >
> > Ok, so in this case the patch for DCCP could be reverted in test tree, is
> > that right? Were these two deleted memsets zeroing all that was necessary
> > or were there any other bugs fixed by the patch?
>
> No, those two memsets became unnecessary by the addition
> of the new cb members. If you want to remove them again,
> you need to add those memsets back and additionally add
> memsets that zero the first sizeof(inet_skb_parm)/
> sizeof(inet6_skb_parm) bytes everywhere else where packets
> are passed to IP(v6).
Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my question. I understand that these two 
memsets would have to be readded. But my question is: did you identify any 
bugs that were caused by junk in skb->cb before applying your patch? If so, 
do you have any test cases? It could help to check code for correctness if 
one day more space in skb->cb will be needed (which of course doesn't have to 
be in the nearest future).
-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Grobelny
--
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