On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 03:29:05PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:24 PM Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 01:36:56PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:43 PM Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 12:40:24PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:29 PM Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Clearly the situation before the patch was not good, it seems well
> > > explained in the changelog.
> > >
> > > If you want to revert, you will need to convince the bug has been
> > > solved in another way.
> > >
> > > So it seems you might have to repro the initial problem.
> >
> > What bug? What repro? You just said you don't have any.
>
> Ask Steinar ?
>
Hi Steinar, do you have a reproducer for the bug that Eric fixed in
commit d4b812dea4a2 ("vlan: mask vlan prio bits")?
Thanks,
-Vladimir
