2 Aug
2013
2 Aug
'13
8:04 a.m.
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 12:05:28PM +0800, Marek
Lindner wrote:
Sure! I think it could actually be a lot easier than I thought (if I
didn't misread or miss something in the skb code).
On Monday, July 29, 2013 04:17:57 Antonio
Quartulli wrote:
I thought the second approach would consist in a bigger patch and so I preferred
to send this to net and the bigger patch to net-next later.
But you may be right. The change I suggested is not really big.
Linus, would you like to provide "the next" patch so that we can clearly
understand if it is worth sending to net or not? Il 27.07.2013 03:24 Linus Lüssing ha scritto:
I like that approach because it seems cleaner that way. Is there a reason not
do it right away ? batadv_send_skb_prepare_unicast(_4addr) might
reallocate the skb's
data. If it does then our ethhdr pointer is not valid anymore in
batadv_send_skb_unicast(), resulting in a kernel paging error.
This patch fixes this issue by storing the few bytes we are interested
in on the stack before modifying the skb.
Good fix! thanks!
However, I think it would be nice to send another patch aiming master
which could polish this situation a bit better: e.g. by calling
skb_reset_mac_header() in the batadv_send_skb_prepare_unicast_*
functions and then get the Ethernet header with eth_hdr() right after
having changed the skb.
Cheers,
--
Antonio Quartulli
..each of us alone is worth nothing..
Ernesto "Che" Guevara