[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ac9a3fde11d8615e946cf48bdbb7b8f410baeea0.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 18:05:38 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
steffen.klassert@...unet.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/8] udp and configurable gro
On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 11:45 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:30 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Would love that. We need to care of key decr, too (and possibly don't
> > be fooled by encap_rcv() users).
>
> I just sent http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/979525/
>
> Right now all users are those that call setup_udp_tunnel_sock
> to register encap_rcv.
plus setsockopt(UDP_ENCAP)
> If accepted, I'll add a separate patch to decrement the key. That's
> probably in udp_tunnel_sock_release, but I need to take a closer
> look.
l2tp calls setup_udp_tunnel_sock() but don't use
udp_tunnel_sock_release(). Possibly it would be safer checking for:
up->encap_type || up(sk)->gro_receive
in udp_destroy_sock()
Cheers,
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists