netdev - [rfc] bridge: is PACKET

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100823033532.GA28463@verge.net.au>
Date:	Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:35:32 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Cc:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Subject: [rfc] bridge: is PACKET_LOOPBACK unlikely()?

While looking at using netdev_rx_handler_register for openvswitch Jesse
Gross suggested that an unlikely() might be worthwhile in that code.
I'm interested to see if its appropriate for the bridge code.

Cc: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>

Index: net-next-2.6/net/bridge/br_input.c
===================================================================
--- net-next-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_input.c	2010-08-23 12:17:58.000000000 +0900
+++ net-next-2.6/net/bridge/br_input.c	2010-08-23 12:19:46.000000000 +0900
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ struct sk_buff *br_handle_frame(struct s
 	const unsigned char *dest = eth_hdr(skb)->h_dest;
 	int (*rhook)(struct sk_buff *skb);
 
-	if (skb->pkt_type == PACKET_LOOPBACK)
+	if (unlikely(skb->pkt_type == PACKET_LOOPBACK))
 		return skb;
 
 	if (!is_valid_ether_addr(eth_hdr(skb)->h_source))
--
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