From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 06/10] udp: cope with UDP GRO packet misdirection
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 14:44:55 +0100
Message-ID: <6d64c6487ca692c08d09a139a5b5b880b378f051.camel@redhat.com>
References: <cover.1540920083.git.pabeni@redhat.com>
         <0fbc6f0cea4b3a976a003a593c6365cb4e4a9e99.1540920083.git.pabeni@redhat.com>
         <debe3f0794fa2c0c80890a24b56aa6785a648acb.camel@redhat.com>
         <CAF=yD-LbaAEF7XS8BT8i1uaZTrGpmAEYvf3Yw7DHFKUKMmGzNA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        steffen.klassert@secunet.com,
        Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <subashab@codeaurora.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36214 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1726794AbeKBWwJ (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 2 Nov 2018 18:52:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-LbaAEF7XS8BT8i1uaZTrGpmAEYvf3Yw7DHFKUKMmGzNA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 17:01 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:57 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > @@ -450,4 +457,32 @@ DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(udpv6_encap_needed_key);
> > >  void udpv6_encap_enable(void);
> > >  #endif
> > > 
> > > +static inline struct sk_buff *udp_rcv_segment(struct sock *sk,
> > > +                                           struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > +     bool ipv4 = skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP);
> > 
> > And this cause a compile warning when # CONFIG_IPV6 is not set, I will
> > fix in the next iteration (again thanks kbuildbot)
> 
> Can also just pass it as argument. 

Agreed. 

> This skb->protocol should work correctly
> with tunneled packets, but it wasn't as immediately obvious to me.
> 
> Also
> 
> +       if (unlikely(!segs))
> +               goto drop;
> 
> this should not happen. But if it could and the caller treats it the
> same as error (both now return NULL), then skb needs to be freed.

Right you are. Will do in the next iteration.

Thanks,

Paolo