netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] xen/netback: correctly calculate required slots of skb.

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:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 16:34:50 +0800
From:	annie li <annie.li@...cle.com>
To:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
CC:	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Ian.Campbell@...rix.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] xen/netback: correctly calculate required slots of
 skb.


On 2013-7-10 15:48, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:31:49AM +0800, annie li wrote:
> [...]
>>> This seems to differ from netbk_gop_frag_copy. In that function it's
>>> like
>>>
>>>      if (*head && skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size && !vif->gso_prefix)
>> I mixed netbk_gop_frag_copy and xen_netbk_count_skb_slots just now,
>> so please ignore the comments here in my last email.
>> In xen_netbk_count_skb_slots, we have following code already, so it
>> is not necessary to add gso condition here.
>>
>>          if (skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size)
>>                  count++;
>>
> Oh I see. But the condition still seems to be different from the
> original one -- you missed !vif->gso_prefix.

The original code in xen_netbk_count_skb_slots does not have 
!vif->gso_prefix. But I think you are right, it is better to keep 
consistent with that in netbk_gop_frag_copy.

Thanks
Annie
--
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