On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 12:40:24PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:29 PM Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 07:54:18AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > > My 2013 commit was a bug fix, and hinted that in the future (eg in
> > > net-next tree) the stop-the-bleed could be refined.
> > >
> > > + /* Note: we might in the future use prio bits
> > > + * and set skb->priority like in vlan_do_receive()
> > > + * For the time being, just ignore Priority Code Point
> > > + */
> > > + skb->vlan_tci = 0;
> > >
> > > If you believe this can be done, this is great.
> >
> > Do you have a reproducer for that bug? I am willing to spend some time
> > understand what is going on. This has nothing to do with priority. You
> > vaguely described a problem with 802.1p (VLAN 0) and used that as an
> > excuse to clear the entire vlan hwaccel tag regardless of VLAN ID. I'm
> > curious because we also now have commit 36b2f61a42c2 ("net: handle
> > 802.1P vlan 0 packets properly") in that general area, and I simply want
> > to know if your patch still serves a valid purpose or not.
> >
>
> I do not have a repro, the patch seemed to help at that time,
> according to the reporter.
Do you mind if I respectfully revert then? It's clear that the patch has
loopholes already (it clears the vlan if it's hwaccel, but leaves it
alone if it isn't) and that the proper solution should be different
anyway.
