netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: introduce tcp_v6

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]

Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:58:24 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: introduce tcp_v6_iif()

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> Commit 971f10eca186 ("tcp: better TCP_SKB_CB layout to reduce cache line
> misses") added a regression for SO_BINDTODEVICE on IPv6.
>
> This is because we still use inet6_iif() which expects that IP6 control
> block is still at the beginning of skb->cb[]
>
> This patch adds tcp_v6_iif() helper and uses it where necessary.
>
> Because __inet6_lookup_skb() is used by TCP and DCCP, we add an iif
> parameter to it.
>

I doubt we still need to store iif in IP6CB() since we have skb->skb_iif,
we can probably just make inet6_iif() be like inet_iif() so that IP6CB()->iif
can be just removed? Does this make any sense to you?

(I have a patch locally since I thought it should be target for net-next.)

Thanks.
--
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