netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: mscc: ocelot: always pass skb clone to ocelot_port_add_txtstamp

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: <20200923.131707.1724242419810377273.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com
Cc:     vladimir.oltean@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, yangbo.lu@....com,
        xiaoliang.yang_1@....com, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
        claudiu.manoil@....com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        andrew@...n.ch, vivien.didelot@...il.com, f.fainelli@...il.com,
        kuba@...nel.org, richardcochran@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: mscc: ocelot: always pass skb clone to
 ocelot_port_add_txtstamp_skb

From: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 22:08:00 +0200

> The 09/23/2020 14:24, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> @@ -345,7 +344,23 @@ static int ocelot_port_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
>>         info.vid = skb_vlan_tag_get(skb);
>> 
>>         /* Check if timestamping is needed */
>> -       do_tstamp = (ocelot_port_add_txtstamp_skb(ocelot_port, skb) == 0);
>> +       if (ocelot->ptp && (shinfo->tx_flags & SKBTX_HW_TSTAMP)) {
>> +               info.rew_op = ocelot_port->ptp_cmd;
>> +
>> +               if (ocelot_port->ptp_cmd == IFH_REW_OP_TWO_STEP_PTP) {
>> +                       struct sk_buff *clone;
>> +
>> +                       clone = skb_clone_sk(skb);
>> +                       if (!clone) {
>> +                               kfree_skb(skb);
>> +                               return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> 
> Why do you return NETDEV_TX_OK?
> Because the frame is not sent yet.

Returning anything other than NETDEV_TX_OK will cause the networking stack
to try and requeue 'skb'.