From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk_buff->iif field properly Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:23:22 -0500 Message-ID: <1199359402.4710.17.camel@localhost> References: <20080103095829.GB2000@ff.dom.local> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Paul Moore , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Jarek Poplawski Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]:30242 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752218AbYACLXZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:23:25 -0500 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id u52so10440468pyb.10 for ; Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:23:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20080103095829.GB2000@ff.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2008-03-01 at 10:58 +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On 02-01-2008 17:01, Paul Moore wrote: > > This patch is needed by some of the labeled networking changes proposed for > > 2.6.25, does anyone have any objections? > > Probably Jamal could be the most interested (added to CC): > Gracias Jarek. Paul, (out of curiosity more than anything) what are the circumstances of the cloned skb - are you going to reinject it back at some point? I cant think of any good reason why iif shouldnt be copied - thats how its been from the begining (dammit;->). The reason it hasnt mattered so far is everything that needs to write the iif never copied (refer to Documentation/networking/tc-actions-env-rules.txt). For correctness i think it should be copied. So no objections; The better patch would be to just put it in skb_clone and remove it from tc_act_clone. cheers, jamal