Re: [iproute PATCH 3/3] tc: pedit: Fix retain value for ihl adjustments

[Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>]

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:21:17AM -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 16-03-03 09:32 AM, Phil Sutter wrote:
> >> The patches look good to me. Phil, maybe get rid of that comment at the
> >> top which was worrying about endianness. I think you fixed it.
> >
> > I'm not so sure. The kernel explicitly takes care to get the bit
> > ordering right:
> >
> [..]
> > act_pedit though just mangles the whole byte as-is, and if that was
> > correct, we would not have to go that extra mile in struct iphdr, or do
> > we?
> >
> 
> I meant in general - the note to say that there are endianes issues
> should go.

Sorry, I didn't get that yet: To me it looks as if on a big-endian
system, the code will actually change the Version field instead of IHL.
Probably the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I'll try to get
access to a big-endian system for testing.

> >> These would of course require more of a larger setup to vet
> >> and running tcpdump to check the correct bytes are being
> >> modified.
> >
> 
> Indeed - That is how i normally would test. It is more complex.
> Your scheme is good - but will not catch a kernel bug.

Sure. OTOH the algorithm in act_pedit is not overly complex. Plus,
fixing one side only prevents accidental workarounds of other side's
bugs.

> > Since I am lazy, I wanted to have as much automation as possible while
> > testing. Therefore I just assumed that act_pedit does the right thing
> > all the time,
> 
> famous last words ;->

:)

> > and iproute just has to feed it correct values. Given the
> > scope of this patch, this is also completely sufficient. Of course, the
> > tests/ directory would benefit more from a full test. But since
> > automation then becomes tricky, I'm not sure it makes much sense to
> > deliberately write code for that.
> >
> 
> Your test is still useful and i think should go into the tests dir.

OK, I'll give it a thought.

Thanks, Phil