netdev - Re: [PATCH -next 0/3] net: cap size to original frag size when refragmenting

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]

Message-ID: <20150416205646.GB4020@acer.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:56:46 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, fw@...len.de,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/3] net: cap size to original frag size when
 refragmenting

On 17.04, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 06:13:25PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >
> > So currently we have one fast path, that is: we are not fragmented, we
> > get out non-fragmented, none of this code is ever touched and no
> > problem.
> > 
> > We don't want to mak this more complex, but
> 
> You should read Dave's other email where he gives you an obvious
> solution.  If you have to modify the skb then you don't have to
> worry about the original fragments.
> 
> But if you only read the skb then don't linearise it completely
> and keep the original fragments.

Yes, I was just responding to that. We need an additional member
in the skb, but then this part is quite simple.
--
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