[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+c5yGoVV5t34diRrita=D1X_Aj-+fXJ2pw7jusnKGL3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 19:51:02 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@...eaurora.org>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net] tcp/udp: Make early_demux back namespacified.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 7:38 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> wrote:
>
> Commit e21145a9871a ("ipv4: namespacify ip_early_demux sysctl knob") made
> it possible to enable/disable early_demux on a per-netns basis. Then, we
> introduced two knobs, tcp_early_demux and udp_early_demux, to switch it for
> TCP/UDP in commit dddb64bcb346 ("net: Add sysctl to toggle early demux for
> tcp and udp"). However, the .proc_handler() was wrong and actually
> disabled us from changing the behaviour in each netns.
>
> static int proc_tfo_blackhole_detect_timeout(struct ctl_table *table,
> int write, void *buffer,
> size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> @@ -695,14 +640,18 @@ static struct ctl_table ipv4_net_table[] = {
> .data = &init_net.ipv4.sysctl_udp_early_demux,
> .maxlen = sizeof(u8),
> .mode = 0644,
> - .proc_handler = proc_udp_early_demux
> + .proc_handler = proc_dou8vec_minmax,
> + .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
> + .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
This does not belong to this patch.
It is IMO too late, some users might use:
echo 2 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/udp_early_demux
> },
> {
> .procname = "tcp_early_demux",
> .data = &init_net.ipv4.sysctl_tcp_early_demux,
> .maxlen = sizeof(u8),
> .mode = 0644,
> - .proc_handler = proc_tcp_early_demux
> + .proc_handler = proc_dou8vec_minmax,
> + .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
> + .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
Same here.
Again, fix the bug, and only the bug. Do not hide 'fixes' in an innocent patch.
There is a reason for that, we want each commit to have a clear description,
and we want to be able to revert a patch without having to think about
what needs
to be re-written.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists