On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 07:57:31AM +0300, Plamen Petrov wrote: > ???? 05.9.2010 ??. 10:49, Eric Dumazet ????????????: >> Le samedi 04 septembre 2010 ?? 22:34 +0200, Jarek Poplawski a écrit : >> >>> Hi again, >>> >>> Just had a second look, and unless I miss something... >>> >>> Plamen, could you test this patch, too? (Without removing the previous >>> one.) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jarek P. >>> >>> -------------------> >>> >>> [PATCH] gro: Re-fix different skb headrooms >>> >>> The patch: "gro: fix different skb headrooms" in its part: >>> "2) allocate a minimal skb for head of frag_list" is buggy. The copied >>> skb has p->data set at the ip header at the moment, and skb_gro_offset >>> is the length of ip + tcp headers. So, after the change the length of >>> mac header is skipped. Later skb_set_mac_header() sets it into the >>> NET_SKB_PAD area (if it's long enough) and ip header is misaligned at >>> NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN offset. There is no reason to assume the >>> original skb was wrongly allocated, so let's copy it as it was. >>> >>> bugzilla : https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16626 >>> fixes commit: 3d3be4333fdf6faa080947b331a6a19bce1a4f57 >>> >>> Reported-by: Plamen Petrov<pvp-lsts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski<jarkao2@xxxxxxxxx> >>> CC: Eric Dumazet<eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c >>> index 26396ff..c83b421 100644 >>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c >>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c >>> @@ -2706,7 +2706,7 @@ int skb_gro_receive(struct sk_buff **head, struct sk_buff *skb) >>> } else if (skb_gro_len(p) != pinfo->gso_size) >>> return -E2BIG; >>> >>> - headroom = NET_SKB_PAD + NET_IP_ALIGN; >>> + headroom = skb_headroom(p); >>> nskb = alloc_skb(headroom + skb_gro_offset(p), GFP_ATOMIC); >>> if (unlikely(!nskb)) >>> return -ENOMEM; >> >> You are right, thanks for reviewing this patch again :) >> >> By the way, NET_IP_ALIGN is now 0 on x86, so technically speaking, your >> patch un-aligns IP header on x86, but thats OK, since other arches might >> want it being aligned, while x86 doesnt care. >> >> Acked-by: Eric Dumazet<eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> > > Well, now that I'm back at work, I'm glad to report > that I tested both variants of the patch, and as Eric > points out - it works both ways. > > So, which ever fits you guys better. We need both of them. I hope David could add this too: Tested-by: Plamen Petrov <pvp-lsts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks a lot everybody! Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
