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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:17:55 +0900 From: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> To: Martin Varghese <martinvarghesenokia@...il.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] bareudp: remove unnecessary udp_encap_enable() in bareudp_socket_create() On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 15:03, Martin Varghese <martinvarghesenokia@...il.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, Thanek you for the review! > On Sun, Mar 08, 2020 at 01:19:30AM +0000, Taehee Yoo wrote: > > In the current code, udp_encap_enable() is called in > > bareudp_socket_create(). > > But, setup_udp_tunnel_sock() internally calls udp_encap_enable(). > > So, udp_encap_enable() is unnecessary. > > > > Signed-off-by: Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/bareudp.c | 3 --- > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/bareudp.c b/drivers/net/bareudp.c > > index c9d0d68467f7..71a2f480f70e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/bareudp.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/bareudp.c > > @@ -250,9 +250,6 @@ static int bareudp_socket_create(struct bareudp_dev *bareudp, __be16 port) > > tunnel_cfg.encap_destroy = NULL; > > setup_udp_tunnel_sock(bareudp->net, sock, &tunnel_cfg); > > > > - if (sock->sk->sk_family == AF_INET6) > > - udp_encap_enable(); > > - > udp_encap_enable is not called for V6 sockets so we need to have the above lines of code This patch is already merged into net-next. So, you could send a revert patch. In addition, I'm not familiar with the socket API. So I'm a little bit curious about why you didn't create separated ipv4 and ipv6 sockets? Vxlan, geneve, etc create separated ipv4, ipv6 UDP socket. In the bareudp modules, it creates a single socket and it tries to call both udp_encap_enable() and udpv6_encap_enable. Is there any special reason or both two ways are actually the same things? Thank you so much! Taehee Yoo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists