Hi,
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:46:10 -0700 pravin shelar <pshe...@ovn.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:04 PM, Shmulik Ladkani
> <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Pravin,
> >
> > On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 13:26:30 -0700 pravin shelar <pshe...@ovn.org> wrote:
> >> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> >> > @@ -4537,7 +4537,7 @@ int skb_vlan_pop(struct sk_buff *skb)
> >> > } else {
> >> > if (unlikely((skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_8021Q) &&
> >> > skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_8021AD)) ||
> >> > - skb->len < VLAN_ETH_HLEN))
> >> > + skb->mac_len < VLAN_ETH_HLEN))
> >>
> >> There is already check in __skb_vlan_pop() to validate skb for a vlan
> >> header. So it is safe to drop this check entirely.
> >
> > Yep, I submitted a v2 with your suggestion, however I withdrew it, as
> > there is a slight behavior difference noticable by 'skb_vlan_pop' callers.
> >
> > Suppose the rare case where skb->len is too small.
> >
> > pre:
> > skb_vlan_pop returns 0 (at least for the correct tx path).
> > Meaning, callers do not see it as a failure.
> > post:
> > skb_ensure_writable fails (!pskb_may_pull), therefore -ENOMEM returned
> > to the callers of 'skb_vlan_pop'.
> >
> > For ovs, it means do_execute_actions's loop is terminated, no further
> > actions are executed, and skb gets freed.
> >
> > For tc act vlan, it means skb gets dropped.
> >
> > This actually makes sense, but do we want to present this change?
> >
> I think this is correct behavior over existing code.
Ok.
I'll submit a v3 identical to v2 but with proper statement of this
behavior change in the commit log.
Thanks.
