From: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
alex aring <alex.aring@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2021 10:57:45 +0100 (CET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55663307.1072450.1611482265804.JavaMail.zimbra@uliege.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210123205444.5e1df187@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
> De: "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>
> À: "Justin Iurman" <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
> Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
>> Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
>> endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
>>
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>
>> This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
>>
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
>
> Are you sure? This looks right to me.
AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one? If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
__u32 reserved:20,
pad:4,
cmpri:4,
cmpre:4;
When the RFC defines the header as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
>> pad:4,
>> reserved1:16;
>> #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>> - __u32 reserved:20,
>> + __u32 cmpri:4,
>> + cmpre:4,
>> pad:4,
>> - cmpri:4,
>> - cmpre:4;
>> + reserved:20;
>> #else
>> #error "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
> > #endif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-24 9:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-21 22:00 [PATCH net 0/1] Fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr Justin Iurman
2021-01-21 22:00 ` [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix " Justin Iurman
2021-01-24 4:54 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-01-24 9:57 ` Justin Iurman [this message]
2021-01-24 18:57 ` David Ahern
2021-01-25 19:32 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-01-25 20:12 ` David Ahern
2021-01-25 20:25 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-01-25 21:11 ` Justin Iurman
2021-01-25 21:47 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-01-25 23:30 ` [PATCH net 0/1] Fix " patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55663307.1072450.1611482265804.JavaMail.zimbra@uliege.be \
--to=justin.iurman@uliege.be \
--cc=alex.aring@gmail.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).