From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] vxlan: Only bind to sockets with correct extensions enabled Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 22:52:52 +0000 Message-ID: <20150107225252.GA21149@casper.infradead.org> References: <46b4ceefbd8513250f64ba9c7297a8d2743f3108.1420594925.git.tgraf@suug.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , Stephen Hemminger , Pravin Shelar , netdev , "dev@openvswitch.org" To: Jesse Gross Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:37946 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752149AbbAGWwy (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2015 17:52:54 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 01/07/15 at 02:45pm, Jesse Gross wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: > > A VXLAN net_device looking for an appropriate socket may only > > consider a socket which has the exact set of extensions enabled. > > If none can be found, a new socket must be created. > > Maybe it's just the phrasing of the commit message but won't the new > socket that needs to be created immediately fail? I think this is > really just checking that you don't try to instantiate two different > sets of extensions on the same UDP port - it's not like this is going > to somehow create a new socket and they will be able to coexist. Your interpretation is correct and the phrasing is poor. It prevents a non-GBP socket from being used for a GBP socket. I will rework the commit message.