[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <9BDB4BB5-F93E-4097-9607-5F28F96BA61E@ovn.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:58:14 -0800
From: Jarno Rajahalme <jarno@....org>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next] af_packet: Use virtio_net_hdr_to_skb().
Sorry for my transgressions and wasting your time. I’ll send a v2 in a moment.
Jarno
> On Nov 18, 2016, at 8:35 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Jarno Rajahalme <jarno@....org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:06:42 -0800
>
>> Use the common virtio_net_hdr_to_skb() instead of open coding it.
>> Other call sites were changed by commit fd2a0437dc, but this one was
>> missed, maybe because it is split in two parts of the source code.
>>
>> Also fix other call sites to be more uniform.
>>
>> Fixes: fd2a0437dc ("virtio_net: introduce virtio_net_hdr_{from,to}_skb")
>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <jarno@....org>
>
> This patch is doing many more things that just this.
>
> Do not mix unrelated changes together:
>
>> @@ -821,9 +821,8 @@ static ssize_t macvtap_put_user(struct macvtap_queue *q,
>> if (iov_iter_count(iter) < vnet_hdr_len)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> - ret = virtio_net_hdr_from_skb(skb, &vnet_hdr,
>> - macvtap_is_little_endian(q));
>> - if (ret)
>> + if (virtio_net_hdr_from_skb(skb, &vnet_hdr,
>> + macvtap_is_little_endian(q)))
>> BUG();
>>
>> if (copy_to_iter(&vnet_hdr, sizeof(vnet_hdr), iter) !=
>
> This has nothing to do with modifying code to use vrtio_net_hdr_to_skb(), it
> doesn't belong in this patch.
>
>> @@ -1361,15 +1360,12 @@ static ssize_t tun_put_user(struct tun_struct *tun,
>> }
>>
>> if (vnet_hdr_sz) {
>> - struct virtio_net_hdr gso = { 0 }; /* no info leak */
>> - int ret;
>> -
>> + struct virtio_net_hdr gso;
>
> This is _extremely_ opaque. The initializer is trying to prevent kernel memory
> info leaks onto the network or into user space.
>
> Maybe this transformation is valid but:
>
> 1) YOU DON'T EVEN MENTION IT IN YOUR COMMIT MESSAGE.
>
> 2) It's unrelated to this specific change, therefore it belongs in
> a separate change.
>
> 3) You don't explain that it is a valid transformation, not why.
>
> It is extremely disappointing to catch unrelated, potentially far
> reaching things embedded in a patch when I review it.
>
> Please do not ever do this.
>
>> @@ -98,4 +98,4 @@ static inline int virtio_net_hdr_from_skb(const struct sk_buff *skb,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -#endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_BYTEORDER */
>> +#endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_NET_H */
>
> Another unrelated change.
>
>> diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
>> index 11db0d6..09abb88 100644
>> --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
>> +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
>> @@ -1971,8 +1971,6 @@ static unsigned int run_filter(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> static int __packet_rcv_vnet(const struct sk_buff *skb,
>> struct virtio_net_hdr *vnet_hdr)
>> {
>> - *vnet_hdr = (const struct virtio_net_hdr) { 0 };
>> -
>
> There is no way this belongs in this patch, and again you do not explain
> why removing this initializer is valid.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists