netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: don't reforward packets already forwarded by offload device

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, 09 Jul 2015 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	sfeldma@...il.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jiri@...nulli.us, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/5] net: don't reforward packets already
 forwarded by offload device

From: sfeldma@...il.com
Date: Wed,  8 Jul 2015 16:16:39 -0700

> @@ -653,6 +654,9 @@ struct sk_buff {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_NETWORK_SECMARK
>  	__u32			secmark;
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_SWITCHDEV
> +	__u32			offload_fwd_mark;
> +#endif

May I humbly suggest:

	union {
#ifdef CONFIG_NETWORK_SECMARK
		__u32	secmark;
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_NET_SWITCHDEV
		__u32	offload_fwd_mark;
#endif
	};

After some studying, I'm largely convinced that these two values are
used in non-conflicting contexts.

Let me know if you can find an exception to this.

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