netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/3] openvswitch: Use is_skb

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: <20161209094902.09580191@griffin>
Date:   Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:49:02 +0100
From:   Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Garver <e@...g.me>
Cc:     Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>, Jarno Rajahalme <jarno@....org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/3] openvswitch: Use is_skb_forwardable()
 for length check.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:50:41 -0500, Eric Garver wrote:
> Should we not also follow the "skbs are untagged" approach that the rest
> of the kernel uses? I'm referring to patches 1 and 2 form Jiri's series
> "openvswitch: make vlan handling consistent".
> 
> With those changes is_skb_forwardable() would behave as expected here.

Yes, this would make the check easy and consistent (and was actually my
original motivation for the mentioned patchset).

Still, is_skb_forwardable would be off by 4 bytes. I wonder whether
it's not off even for the bridge case. And dev_forward_skb seems to be
fishy, too.

 Jiri