On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 01:39:52AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > 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
The Google email address from the original report bounces back. Adding another address found by searching for your name on netdev.
