netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] consolidate duplicate code is skb_checksum

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: <9AAE0902D5BC7E449B7C8E4E778ABCD025D4FD@AMSPEX01CL01.citrite.net>
Date:	Thu, 27 Feb 2014 12:00:18 +0000
From:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] consolidate duplicate code is
 skb_checksum_setup() helpers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@...e.com]
> Sent: 27 February 2014 11:50
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; Eric Dumazet; netdev@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] consolidate duplicate code is
> skb_checksum_setup() helpers
> 
> >>> On 27.02.14 at 11:57, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com> wrote:
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@...e.com]
> >> Sent: 27 February 2014 09:05
> >> To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> >> Cc: Paul Durrant; davem@...emloft.net; Eric Dumazet
> >> Subject: [PATCH net-next] consolidate duplicate code is
> >> skb_checksum_setup() helpers
> >>
> >> Realizing that the skb_maybe_pull_tail() calls in the IP-protocol
> >> specific portions of both helpers are terminal ones (i.e. no further
> >> pulls are expected), their maximum size to be pulled can be made match
> >> their minimal size needed, thus making the code identical and hence
> >> possible to be moved into another helper.
> >
> > There is a difference in the case of an IPv4 TCP packet with options. With
> > your patch it will only get pulled up as far as the base header so there may
> > need to be another pull for options parsing.
> 
> Don't the options start right after the IP header, before the TCP
> or UDP one? In which case the pull covers them.
> 

*IP* options do, TCP options are immediately after the TCP header (hence the TCP header length field). UDP doesn't have options.

  Paul

> Jan

--
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