[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJFZqHxn77yUpGkOUzywVR7wg2_L8tFaLNrFyaauuLWPJsQUHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 08:51:25 +0800
From: RongQing Li <roy.qing.li@...il.com>
To: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jesse@...ira.com, pshelar@...ira.com,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH Resend] core: should call pskb_expand_head if skb header
is cloned in skb_gso_segment in rx path
No, I just read and analyze it, and think it is bogus.
2013/4/2 Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>:
> On Mon, 2013-04-01 at 10:37 +0800, roy.qing.li@...il.com wrote:
>> From: Li RongQing <roy.qing.li@...il.com>
>>
>> 12b0004d1d1 (adjust skb_gso_segment() for calling in rx path) tries to kill warnings
>> by checking if ip_summed is CHECK_NONE or not in rx path, since if skb_gso_segment()
>> is called on rx path, and ->ip_summed has different meaning.
>>
>> but this maybe break skb if skb header is cloned, and not expand the header, since when
>> step into skb_mac_gso_segment(), which will still check ip_summed with CHECKSUM_PARTIAL,
>> then do gso_send_check(). and after __skb_gso_segment() in queue_gso_packets() of
>> openvswitch, queue_userspace_packet() still checks ip_summed with CHECKSUM_PARTIAL,
>> and do checksum.
>>
>> so I think it is enough to ignore the warning in rx path.
>>
>
> Did you see any bogus warning triggered by it?
>
> BTW, please Cc all the people involved in the original commit you
> mentioned above.
>
>
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists