[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201008160704.1da26095@carbon>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:07:04 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
Shaun Crampton <shaun@...era.io>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
Marek Majkowski <marek@...udflare.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next V2 1/6] bpf: Remove MTU check in
__bpf_skb_max_len
On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 08:33:04 -0400
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 7:06 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Oct 2020 16:46:10 -0700
> > Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > static u32 __bpf_skb_max_len(const struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > {
> > > > - return skb->dev ? skb->dev->mtu + skb->dev->hard_header_len :
> > > > - SKB_MAX_ALLOC;
> > > > + return IP_MAX_MTU;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we just delete this helper instead and replace call sites?
> >
> > It does seem wrong to pass argument skb into this function, as it is
> > no-longer used...
> >
> > Guess I can simply replace __bpf_skb_max_len with IP_MAX_MTU.
>
> Should that be IP6_MAX_MTU, which is larger than IP_MAX_MTU?
Sure I'll do that, and handle that is hides under CONFIG_IPV6.
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists