Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand

Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand

[Herbert Xu]

Stuffed Crust <pizza@shaftnet.org> wrote:
> 
> This is, fortunately, generally true.  But if the alloc_skb function 
> allocates extra head room (ie calls skb_reserve() on the skb before it 
> passes it to the callee, this doesn't quite work.  Instead, it should be 
> rewritten as:

As far as I know the alloc_skb funciton in the kernel tree doesn't do
that so your patch is not necessary unless we decide to change the way
alloc_skb works.  If that's what you want then please provide a patch
to alloc_skb and a rationale as to why we should do that.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand

[Stuffed Crust]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1078 bytes --]

On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 01:04:34PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > This is, fortunately, generally true.  But if the alloc_skb function 
> > allocates extra head room (ie calls skb_reserve() on the skb before it 
> > passes it to the callee, this doesn't quite work.  Instead, it should be 
> > rewritten as:
> 
> As far as I know the alloc_skb funciton in the kernel tree doesn't do
> that so your patch is not necessary unless we decide to change the way
> alloc_skb works.  If that's what you want then please provide a patch
> to alloc_skb and a rationale as to why we should do that.

It does not, and I have no intention of submitting a patch to change it. 
As I said in my original message, it was a crude hack which has since
been relegated to the great bitbucket of the sky.  All that's left is
that "bugfix" patch.

I've performed my due-diligence in airing it to the powers that be, so 
I'll go way now.

 - Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachy        				 ICQ: 1318344
Melbourne, FL 					 JID: pitha@myjabber.net
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand

[David S. Miller]

From: Stuffed Crust <pizza@shaftnet.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix long-standing bug in 2.6/2.4 skb_copy/skb_copy_expand
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:38:45 -0400

> As I said in my original message, it was a crude hack which has since
> been relegated to the great bitbucket of the sky.  All that's left is
> that "bugfix" patch.

If alloc_skb() does not do an skb_reserve(), then the bug fix
patch is unnecessary.  The "bug" only exists if you happen to
change alloc_skb() to do an skb_reserve().