Dnia Tuesday 22 of April 2008, napisałeś: > Tomasz Grobelny wrote: > > Dnia Monday 21 of April 2008, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo napisał: > >> Nod, if we don't need the space reserved for the lower layer protocols > >> in DCCP it is actually the best solution, as we don't need to zero the > >> cb again before passing it to IP, it gets zeroed at alloc_skb time and > >> that is it. If we need the space, we have to pay the price of > >> memset before passing to IP. > > > > Ok, so in this case the patch for DCCP could be reverted in test tree, is > > that right? Were these two deleted memsets zeroing all that was necessary > > or were there any other bugs fixed by the patch? > > No, those two memsets became unnecessary by the addition > of the new cb members. If you want to remove them again, > you need to add those memsets back and additionally add > memsets that zero the first sizeof(inet_skb_parm)/ > sizeof(inet6_skb_parm) bytes everywhere else where packets > are passed to IP(v6). Maybe I wasn't clear enough with my question. I understand that these two memsets would have to be readded. But my question is: did you identify any bugs that were caused by junk in skb->cb before applying your patch? If so, do you have any test cases? It could help to check code for correctness if one day more space in skb->cb will be needed (which of course doesn't have to be in the nearest future). -- Regards, Tomasz Grobelny -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
