netdev - Re: TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->flags = iph->tos ?

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: <20080604.152607.170576716.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:26:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	opurdila@...acom.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->flags = iph->tos ?

From: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 23:53:56 +0300

> 
> tcp_v4_rcv says: TCP_SKB_CB(skb)->flags = iph->tos;
> 
> I am probably missing something obvious, but shouldn't flags be initialized 
> with the TCP headers instead of the IP TOS value?

On packet output ->flags holds the TCP header flags, on packet input
it holds the TOS field for testing ECN flags.

You could have had a look at how the ->flags field is used on TCP
output vs. TCP input processing to get a better idea of what might be
going on here.

That's exactly how I figured it out, I didn't know the answer either,
but constantly I'm doing simple searches for people and learning the
code for other people it seems even when I really don't even have
the time to do so :-/
--
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