netdev - Re: [PATCH] xen: netfront: Drop GSO SKBs which do not have csum

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: <1295975376.14780.6595.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:09:36 +0000
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...citrix.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: netfront: Drop GSO SKBs which do not have
 csum_blank.

On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 17:55 +0000, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> No, I didn't mean to drop the skb_is_gso() test.  But still, the if()s
> can be folded to share the same body.

My original opinion was that sharing that bit of body at the expense of
an increasingly hard to decipher if conditional was not a good trade
off.

However thinking about it again I think the test logic would be better
of factored out into a validate_incoming_skb() type function anyway.
Short (2 patch) replacement series follows.

Ian.

--
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