[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1274789024.3878.919.camel@bigi>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 08:03:44 -0400
From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: Question about an assignment in handle_ing()
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 20:26 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> In that case you should be checking whether the skb is cloned.
That is the general rule used (and what i specify to do in the docs)..
but i recall there were issues if the packet path emanated from ingress
and included multiple netdevices (earlier ex with mirror applies). There
may have been bugs then, eg I could not assume that it i had any ptype
at all that the ptype will clone the packet. Does tcpdump guarantee
skb->clone being set? I will try to test some scenarios when i am back
+settled.
> After all, tcpdump might have simply filtered the packet out.
True - but i think thats an acceptable compromise.
> BTW, this is the case whenever you run a DHCP client/server. So
> on most boxes your optimisation will never kick in as is.
"Most" for people running serious firewalls or routers is not to run
DHCP servers;-> They may client, but thats a short-lived session.
> Also
> the skb may still be cloned even if there is no AF_PACKET listener.
> In that case your optimisation may be incorrect.
Did you mean that as long as there are other ptypes - which may or
not be doing af packet?
cheers,
jamal
--
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