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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220831100715.GB18919@pc-4.home> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:07:15 +0200 From: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com> To: Wojciech Drewek <wojciech.drewek@...el.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, alexandr.lobakin@...el.com, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, marcin.szycik@...ux.intel.com, michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com, kurt@...utronix.de, boris.sukholitko@...adcom.com, vladbu@...dia.com, komachi.yoshiki@...il.com, paulb@...dia.com, baowen.zheng@...igine.com, louis.peens@...igine.com, simon.horman@...igine.com, pablo@...filter.org, maksym.glubokiy@...ision.eu, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, jchapman@...alix.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 2/5] flow_dissector: Add L2TPv3 dissectors On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 11:44:09AM +0200, Wojciech Drewek wrote: > Allow to dissect L2TPv3 specific field which is: > - session ID (32 bits) > > L2TPv3 might be transported over IP or over UDP, > this ipmplementation is only about L2TPv3 over IP. > IP protocold carries L2TPv3 when ip_proto is s/protocold/protocol/ > +static void __skb_flow_dissect_l2tpv3(const struct sk_buff *skb, > + struct flow_dissector *flow_dissector, > + void *target_container, const void *data, > + int nhoff, int hlen) > +{ > + struct flow_dissector_key_l2tpv3 *key_l2tpv3; > + struct { > + __be32 session_id; > + } *hdr, _hdr; > + > + hdr = __skb_header_pointer(skb, nhoff, sizeof(_hdr), data, hlen, &_hdr); > + if (!hdr) > + return; > + > + if (!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector, FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_L2TPV3)) > + return; I'd find it more logical to test !dissector_uses_key() first, then call __skb_header_pointer(). But that probably just a personnal preference. In any case the code looks good to me. Acked-by: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists