[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1395366479.9114.118.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:47:59 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: Don't clear skbuff hash for IP
fragments
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 17:09 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> There is nothing to gain by clearing hash, it shouldn't be an L4
> hash anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c b/net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c
> index c10a3ce..10a64de 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_fragment.c
> @@ -704,7 +704,6 @@ struct sk_buff *ip_check_defrag(struct sk_buff *skb, u32 user)
> memset(IPCB(skb), 0, sizeof(struct inet_skb_parm));
> if (ip_defrag(skb, user))
> return NULL;
> - skb_clear_hash(skb);
> }
> }
> return skb;
It might be worth checking ip_defrag() will set skb->hash to the hash
provided in the first fragment, the one that might give l4 info...
--
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