From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/3] net: cap size to original frag size when refragmenting Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:56:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20150416205646.GB4020@acer.localdomain> References: <20150416052357.GA3285@acer.localdomain> <20150416052904.GA12648@gondor.apana.org.au> <1429186302.1075929.254563877.238D8F77@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20150416.114323.2122666447487730641.davem@davemloft.net> <1429200805.1141475.254665081.0E1724C4@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20150416204702.GA20616@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa , David Miller , fw@strlen.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:39041 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754108AbbDPU4t (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:56:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150416204702.GA20616@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 17.04, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 06:13:25PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > > > > So currently we have one fast path, that is: we are not fragmented, we > > get out non-fragmented, none of this code is ever touched and no > > problem. > > > > We don't want to mak this more complex, but > > You should read Dave's other email where he gives you an obvious > solution. If you have to modify the skb then you don't have to > worry about the original fragments. > > But if you only read the skb then don't linearise it completely > and keep the original fragments. Yes, I was just responding to that. We need an additional member in the skb, but then this part is quite simple.