From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: skb_ip_make_writable and skbs not owned by a socket Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:50:39 -0800 Message-ID: <20050126215039.65ebd158.davem@davemloft.net> References: <41D86571.6070501@trash.net> <20050113213122.7e70c3c2.davem@davemloft.net> <41E75FA4.907@trash.net> <20050117135029.04e6580f.davem@davemloft.net> <41EC469F.6010605@trash.net> <41F869C2.5030800@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Patrick McHardy In-Reply-To: <41F869C2.5030800@trash.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:10:42 +0100 Patrick McHardy wrote: > Dave, could you please have another look at this ? I think the patch is > correct, and even necessary to make the ipt action work with targets > that mangle the data area. Jamal asked me to put back the pskb_expand_head > call in the ipt action, so iptables won't see cloned skbs and copy them > (actions must not replace the skb), but the protocol-dependant cases > in skb_ip_make_writable can cause copying anyway. I think you missed > my reply to your last mail, please see below. It's in my backlog, don't worry. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. Is it the end of the world if I defer it to 2.6.12?