netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] vlan: Do not support clearing VLAN_FLAG_REORDER

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: <4DDAB9FC.8050207@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 23 May 2011 21:48:12 +0200
From:	Nicolas de Pesloüan 
	<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To:	Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
CC:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, kaber@...sh.net, fubar@...ibm.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, andy@...yhouse.net,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vlan: Do not support clearing VLAN_FLAG_REORDER_HDR

Le 23/05/2011 12:43, Jiri Pirko a écrit :
> Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:41:22AM CEST, ebiederm@...ssion.com wrote:
>> Changli Gao<xiaosuo@...il.com>  writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>>> <ebiederm@...ssion.com>  wrote:
>>>>> In another side, is there a specification which defines the
>>>>> hw-accel-vlan-rx?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> I have just been trying to clean up the mess since some of the
>>>> hw-accel-vlan code broke my use case, by delivering packets with
>>>> priority but no vlan (aka vlan 0 packets) twice to my pf_packet sockets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK. But if we have decided to simulate the hw-accel-vlan-rx, I think
>>> we'd better adjust the place where we put the emulation code. The very
>>> beginnings of netif_rx() and neif_receive_skb() are better. Then rps
>>> can support vlan packets without any change.
>>
>> That sounds nice. Patches are welcome.
>>
>> In principle it should be doable with some code motion.  I don't think
>> moving vlan_untag earlier constitutes a bug fix.
>
> I do not think that is doable. Consider multi tagged packets. The place
> just after "another_round" takes care about that.
>
> Btw what's the rationale to move untag to earlier position?

Maybe simply because we try to mimic hw-accel, and hw-accel untagging definitely happens before we 
enter __netif_receive_skb and only happens once.

So having software untagging inside the __netif_receive_skb loop looks different.

	Nicolas.
--
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