[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140530.233730.278118344680023489.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 23:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: davidn@...idnewall.com
Cc: bdschuym@...dora.be, fw@...len.de, stephen@...workplumber.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, bsd@...hat.com,
vyasevich@...il.com
Subject: Re: Revert 462fb2af9788a82a534f8184abfde31574e1cfa0 (bridge :
Sanitize skb before it enters the IP stack)
From: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 15:43:16 +0930
> On 31/05/14 10:16, David Miller wrote:
>> I don't see why you don't simply keep br_parse_ip_options() around
>> and adjust it as you need, you're just mostly duplicating it's
>> contents into br_nf_pre_routing().
>
> More accurately, I'm *restoring* br_parse_ip_options()'s contents to
> br_nf_pre_routing(). The reasons why are twofold: I'm undoing a
> change which turns out to have been a mistake; and leaving it largely
> as-is, just removing the call to ip_options_compile(), would be
> confusing in that the name (br_pase_ip_options()) gives an expectation
> of function that would be untrue.
>
> I can see an argument in favour of leaving br_parse_options() around,
> being that it is called from three places, and thus restoring the code
> removes checks which are currently being performed. They weren't
> being performed before and it's not clear that they are needed, but if
> you say that it would be better, I'll leave it around and just remove
> the call to ip_options_compile(). Just say the word.
You can rename the function to something more suitable.
Because then it's just a handful of line changes rather than a huge
bunch of hunks which are harder to audit.
--
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