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 11:15:34 -0500 Message-ID: <200801031115.34886.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20080103095829.GB2000@ff.dom.local> <1199359402.4710.17.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jarek Poplawski To: hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.46]:40409 "EHLO g5t0009.atlanta.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751720AbYACQPk (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:15:40 -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. > 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. While I'm at it, is there some reason for this #define in __skb_clone()? #define C(x) n->x = skb->x ... it seems kinda silly to me and I tend to think the code would be better without it. -- paul moore linux security @ hp