From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Berg Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Aug 7 Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:22:02 +0200 Message-ID: <1375892522.8154.3.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> References: <20130807155443.a0355d0429f3e0b4ccbed261@canb.auug.org.au> <20130807155918.GA16263@orbit.nwl.cc> <1375891974.8154.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <1375892245.4004.31.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (sfid-20130807_181729_176093_C3201A13) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from s3.sipsolutions.net ([144.76.43.152]:59888 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752260Ab3HGQWT (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:22:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1375892245.4004.31.camel@edumazet-glaptop> (sfid-20130807_181729_176093_C3201A13) Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Phil Sutter , Sedat Dilek , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Hannes Frederic Sowa , wireless , John Linville On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 09:17 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 18:12 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 17:59 +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > The idea behind this patch is that users setting the protocol to > > > something else probably do know better and so should be left alone. > > > > Regardless of that, I think that still the skb pointers would be changed > > by this patch which would confuse the receiver of the SKB (device > > driver), no? Has anyone verified that theory? :) > > Maybe receivers made wrong assumptions about some headers being set or > not set ? Maybe. I haven't tested it, but I'm thinking that skb->data doesn't point to the start of the data frame in this case, since we now call eth_type_trans() which pulls the ethernet header. So if the device just transmits skb->len starting from skb->data, it'll be wrong, no? That seems a basic assumption though. johannes