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 17:00:31 -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 11:19 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 09:58 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> This makes sense and would gain 4 bytes in skb->cb[], so definitely
> worth it.
>


Hmm, after testing my patch, I found that some IPv6 code (scope_id) calls
inet6_iif() at socket layer too, where skb dst is already dropped. So we can't
simply use skb_dst() for all inet6_iif(). This is also why IPv4 is different.

Therefore, I think your patch is fine at least for net.
--
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