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  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]
Date:   Sun, 24 Apr 2022 10:29:45 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <>
Cc:, "Michael S . Tsirkin" <>,
        Jason Wang <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>,
        Maxim Mikityanskiy <>,,
        Balazs Nemeth <>,
        Mike Pattrick <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/af_packet: add VLAN support for AF_PACKET

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?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists