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  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]
Date:	Sun, 22 May 2011 10:52:28 +0200
From:	Michał Mirosław <>
To:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
Cc:	Jiri Pirko <>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <>,
	Jesse Gross <>,
	Changli Gao <>,
	David Miller <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6 v2] net: vlan: make non-hw-accel rx path
 similar to hw-accel

2011/5/22 Nicolas de Pesloüan <>:
> Le 22/05/2011 08:34, Eric W. Biederman a écrit :
>> Jiri Pirko<>  writes:
>>> Sun, May 22, 2011 at 04:59:49AM CEST, wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> And because some setups may still require the skb not to be untagged,
>>>> may be we need the ability to re-tag the skb in some situations...
>>>> When a protocol handler or rx_handler is explicitly registered on a
>>>> net_device which expect to receive tagged skb, we should deliver
>>>> tagged skb to it... Arguably, this may sound incredible for the
>>>> general case, but may be required for not-so-special cases like
>>>> bridge or protocol analyzer.
>>> Wait, what setups/code require the skb not to be untagged? If there's
>>> such, it should be fixed.
>> tcpdump on the non-vlan interface for one.
> bridge is another. More precisely, there is a difference between the
> following two setups:
> 1/ eth0 - eth0.100 - br0 - eth1.200 - eth1
> 2/ eth0 - br0 - eth1
> In case 1, it is normal and desirable for the bridge to see untagged skb.
> In case 2, it is desirable for the bridge to see untouched (possibly tagged)
> skb. If current bridge implementation is able to handle skb from which we
> removed a tag, in this situation, it means that bridge currently "fix
> improper untagging" by itself, by forcing re-tagging on output. I think is
> should not be the job of protocol handlers to fix this. Again, a generic
> feature should to it when necessary.
> Think of the following setups:
> 3/ eth0 - br0 - eth1.200 - eth1.
> 4/ eth0 - eth0.100 - br0 - eth1
> What if one expect this setup to add (3) or remove (4) one level of vlan
> nesting? This is precisely what this setup suggest. How can we instruct the
> bridge to do so? It is not the bridge responsibility to do any vlan
> processing. bridge is expected to... bridge !

I assumed that this untaging Jiri is implementing does not remove the
tag. It moves the information from skb->data to skb->vlan_tci, but the
information contained is not otherwise changing. All your examples
should work regardless of where the tag is stored.

Best Regards,
Michał Mirosław
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists