From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Abeni Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/8] udp and configurable gro Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2018 18:05:38 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180914175941.213950-1-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> <736e48946dee45db19c13c9d64f1aa21e0c8ef99.camel@redhat.com> <17ebaef357cda6696808259c1e42843a37c15f37.camel@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Network Development , steffen.klassert@secunet.com, David Miller , Willem de Bruijn To: Willem de Bruijn Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34694 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727572AbeJEXFA (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Oct 2018 19:05:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 11:45 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:30 AM Paolo Abeni wrote: > > Would love that. We need to care of key decr, too (and possibly don't > > be fooled by encap_rcv() users). > > I just sent http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/979525/ > > Right now all users are those that call setup_udp_tunnel_sock > to register encap_rcv. plus setsockopt(UDP_ENCAP) > If accepted, I'll add a separate patch to decrement the key. That's > probably in udp_tunnel_sock_release, but I need to take a closer > look. l2tp calls setup_udp_tunnel_sock() but don't use udp_tunnel_sock_release(). Possibly it would be safer checking for: up->encap_type || up(sk)->gro_receive in udp_destroy_sock() Cheers, Paolo