netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: fix for ip_options_rcv

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]

Date:	Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:23:43 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	lw@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: fix for ip_options_rcv_srr() daddr update.

From: Li Wei <lw@...fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:51:29 +0800

>> From: Li Wei <lw@...fujitsu.com>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:26:31 +0800
>> 
>>> My question, in ip_forward() and ip_forward_options() rt is there, why not
>>> we just use it?
>> 
>> Because I'm trying to eliminate all accesses to rt->rt_dst because
>> when I remove the routing cache, routes will be shared.  One 'rt'
>> will refer to many specific destination addresses.
>> 
>> 
> Sorry, I can't understand what you said, can you make it more clear?
> 
> I think in ip_forward(), we need 'rt' to forward skb, until this skb has been 
> forwarded we hold a reference to it in skb, We can use rt->rt_dst safely, It
> is an ordinary __be32 not a reference.

My long term plan is to eliminate cached routes, we will directly use
routing table entries instead.

In such a scheme, the member rt->rt_dst will no longer even exist.

This is what I've been working towards for more than a year, it is a
slow and very difficult transformation.

If you starting adding rt->rt_dst references back, we are taking
steps backwards.
--
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