netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net/af_packet: add VLAN support for AF_PACKET SOCK

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+FuTSe7zNmJ0JpouMoCFrt5AR19HJQVzDsB3BK46A9rNfowYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 24 Apr 2022 09:46:19 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@...lanox.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Balazs Nemeth <bnemeth@...hat.com>,
        Mike Pattrick <mpattric@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/af_packet: add VLAN support for AF_PACKET
 SOCK_RAW GSO

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:31 PM Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 05:39:48PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > If we split skb_probe_transport_header() from packet_parse_headers() and
> > > move it before calling virtio_net_hdr_* function in packet_snd(). Should
> > > we do the same for tpacket_snd(), i.e. move skb_probe_transport_header()
> > > after the virtio_net_hdr_* function?
> >
> > That sounds like the inverse: "move after" instead of "move before"?
>
> That's for "split packet_parse_headers()" option.
>
> >
> > But I thought the plan was to go back to your last patch which brings
> > packet_snd in line with tpacket_snd by moving packet_parse_headers in
> > its entirety before virtio_net_hdr_*?
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> > > So my conclusion is. There is no need to split packet_parse_headers(). Move
> > > packet_parse_headers() before calling virtio_net_hdr_* function in packet_snd()
> > > should be safe.
> >
> > Ack. Sorry if my last response was not entirely clear on this point.
>
> Thanks a lot for your review. Do you think if I need to re-post the patch?
> Or will you give an Acked-by for this one?

Please resubmit. And then please also add the comment about tap having
the same path.

>
> Hangbin