[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YWb7tFDwitBYSaXO@t14s.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 12:31:00 -0300
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To: Eiichi Tsukata <eiichi.tsukata@...anix.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: account stream padding length for reconf chunk
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:17:08AM +0000, Eiichi Tsukata wrote:
> Hi Marcelo
>
> > On Oct 11, 2021, at 22:15, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> ...
> >
> > So if stream_num was originally 1, stream_len would be 2, and with
> > padding, 4. Here, nums would be 2 then, and not 1. The padding gets
> > accounted as if it was payload.
> >
> > IOW, the patch is making the padding part of the parameter data by
> > adding it to the header as well. SCTP padding works by having it in
> > between them, and not inside them.
> >
> > This other approach avoids this issue by adding the padding only when
> > allocating the packet. It (ab)uses the fact that inreq and outreq are
> > already aligned to 4 bytes. Eiichi, can you please give it a go?
> >
> >
>
> Thanks, I understood. I’ve tested your diff with my reproducer and it certainly works.
> Your diff looks good to me.
Cool, thanks. I'm running a couple more tests on it and will submit it
on your behalf by EOD if all goes well.
Regards,
Marcelo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists