From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Tobin C. Harding" Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] erspan: set bso bit based on mirrored packet's len Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:33:42 +1000 Message-ID: <20180515053342.GB10152@eros> References: <1526342076-43714-1-git-send-email-u9012063@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: William Tu Return-path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:48159 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750886AbeEOFdr (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 May 2018 01:33:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1526342076-43714-1-git-send-email-u9012063@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:54:36PM -0700, William Tu wrote: > Before the patch, the erspan BSO bit (Bad/Short/Oversized) is not > handled. BSO has 4 possible values: > 00 --> Good frame with no error, or unknown integrity > 11 --> Payload is a Bad Frame with CRC or Alignment Error > 01 --> Payload is a Short Frame > 10 --> Payload is an Oversized Frame > > Based the short/oversized definitions in RFC1757, the patch sets > the bso bit based on the mirrored packet's size. > > Reported-by: Xiaoyan Jin > Signed-off-by: William Tu > --- > include/net/erspan.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/net/erspan.h b/include/net/erspan.h > index d044aa60cc76..5eb95f78ad45 100644 > --- a/include/net/erspan.h > +++ b/include/net/erspan.h > @@ -219,6 +219,30 @@ static inline __be32 erspan_get_timestamp(void) > return htonl((u32)h_usecs); > } > > +/* ERSPAN BSO (Bad/Short/Oversized) > + * 00b --> Good frame with no error, or unknown integrity > + * 01b --> Payload is a Short Frame > + * 10b --> Payload is an Oversized Frame > + * 11b --> Payload is a Bad Frame with CRC or Alignment Error > + */ > +enum erspan_bso { > + BSO_NOERROR, > + BSO_SHORT, > + BSO_OVERSIZED, > + BSO_BAD, > +}; If we are relying on the values perhaps this would be clearer BSO_NOERROR = 0x00, BSO_SHORT = 0x01, BSO_OVERSIZED = 0x02, BSO_BAD = 0x03, > + > +static inline u8 erspan_detect_bso(struct sk_buff *skb) > +{ > + if (skb->len < ETH_ZLEN) > + return BSO_SHORT; > + > + if (skb->len > ETH_FRAME_LEN) > + return BSO_OVERSIZED; > + > + return BSO_NOERROR; > +} Without having much contextual knowledge around this patch; should we be doing some check on CRC or alignment (at some stage)? Having BSO_BAD seems to imply so? Hope this helps, Tobin.