[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200311005613.GA18516@martin-VirtualBox>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 06:26:13 +0530
From: Martin Varghese <martinvarghesenokia@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
martin.varghese@...ia.com, Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bareudp: Fixed bareudp receive handling
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 10:28:40AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 3/10/20 10:02 AM, Martin Varghese wrote:
> > From: Martin Varghese <martin.varghese@...ia.com>
> >
> > Reverted commit "2baecda bareudp: remove unnecessary udp_encap_enable() in
> > bareudp_socket_create()"
> >
> > An explicit call to udp_encap_enable is needed as the setup_udp_tunnel_sock
> > does not call udp_encap_enable if the if the socket is of type v6.
> >
> > Bareudp device uses v6 socket to receive v4 & v6 traffic
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Martin Varghese <martin.varghese@...ia.com>
> > Fixes: 2baecda37f4e ("bareudp: remove unnecessary udp_encap_enable() in bareudp_socket_create()")
>
> Please CC the author of recent patches, do not hide,
> and to be clear, it is not about blaming, just information.
>
You mean the author of 2baecda37f4e ("bareudp: remove unnecessary udp_encap_enable() in bareudp_socket_create()") ?
yes i will do.
> > ---
> > drivers/net/bareudp.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/bareudp.c b/drivers/net/bareudp.c
> > index 71a2f48..c9d0d68 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/bareudp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/bareudp.c
> > @@ -250,6 +250,9 @@ 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);
> >
>
> This might need a comment.
>
> Can this condition be false ?
>
If the IPv6 is disabled the socket type will be v4 and there is no need of explicit call to
udp_encap_enable
> According to your changelog, it seems not.
>
> Give to reviewers more chance to avoid future mistakes.
>
You mean add a comment?
> Thanks.
>
> > + if (sock->sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
> > + udp_encap_enable();
> > +
> > rcu_assign_pointer(bareudp->sock, sock);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists