netdev - Re: hard_header_len vs needed

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:42:02 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hard_header_len vs needed_headroom

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
>
> It's not whether LL_RESERVED_SPACE() is used or not, it's whether
> dev->hard_header_len is always the offset from mac_header to
> network_header. mirred is not alone, tpacket_fill_skb() uses this as well.
> So I think we have to fix dev->hard_header_len for tunnels.

Thinking a bit more, I think this behavior is correct, the mirror device should
see the same packets as the tunnel device, that means for ipip tunnel its
dev->hard_header_len should be 0. vxlan tunnel needs to fix actually.
--
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