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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
