[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1375892522.8154.3.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:22:02 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
John Linville <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 7
On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 09:17 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 18:12 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 17:59 +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> >
> > > The idea behind this patch is that users setting the protocol to
> > > something else probably do know better and so should be left alone.
> >
> > Regardless of that, I think that still the skb pointers would be changed
> > by this patch which would confuse the receiver of the SKB (device
> > driver), no? Has anyone verified that theory? :)
>
> Maybe receivers made wrong assumptions about some headers being set or
> not set ?
Maybe. I haven't tested it, but I'm thinking that skb->data doesn't
point to the start of the data frame in this case, since we now call
eth_type_trans() which pulls the ethernet header. So if the device just
transmits skb->len starting from skb->data, it'll be wrong, no? That
seems a basic assumption though.
johannes
--
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