From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] NET: Clone the sk_buff->iif field properly Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:01:37 -0500 Message-ID: <200801030901.38962.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20080103095829.GB2000@ff.dom.local> <1199359402.4710.17.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jarek Poplawski , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:18248 "EHLO g4t0016.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750823AbYACOB4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 09:01:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1199359402.4710.17.camel@localhost> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 03 January 2008 6:23:22 am jamal wrote: > 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. Yes, thank you. One of these days I need to learn some git commands other than clone, update, and push ;) > 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? Well, I'm not planning on reinjecting the cloned skb at present (doesn't mean I won't think up some contrived use in the future) but the stack appears to do this already in a few cases and it is causing problems when we try to perform access control on the cloned skb. The git-lblnet "horkage" in the -mm tree just before the holiday is the most notable example. > 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; Great. > The better patch would be to just put it in skb_clone and remove it from > tc_act_clone. I assume you mean skb_act_clone()? That sounds like the best idea, I'll fixup the patch and resend it today for more review. Thanks guys. -- paul moore linux security @ hp