On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:39:46AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
>
> > > It seems v0 should be changed too,
> > > ip_vs_send_sync_msg() handles both versions in sb->mesg.
> >
> > Thanks and sorry for missing that.
> > How about this?
> >
> > From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ipvs: Use network byte order for sync message size
> >
> > struct ip_vs_sync_mesg and ip_vs_sync_mesg_v0 are both sent across the wire
> > and used internally to store IPVS synchronisation messages.
> >
> > Up until now the scheme used has been to convert the size field
> > to network byte order before sending a message on the wire and
> > convert it to host byte order when sending a message.
> >
> > This patch changes that scheme to always treat the field
> > as being network byte order. This seems appropriate as
> > the structure is sent across the wire. And by consistently
> > treating the field has network byte order it is now possible
> > to take advantage of sparse to flag any future miss-use.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > v2
> > * As suggested by Julian Anastasov,
> > update struct ip_vs_sync_mesg_v0 as well as struct ip_vs_sync_mesg.
>
> v2 looks good,
>
> Acked-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
[snip]
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 07:55:51AM +0200, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
> Hello Simon
>
> On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 13:05 +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:35:04PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Simon Horman wrote:
> > >
> > > > My idea is as follows:
> > > >
> > > > From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > ipvs: Use network byte order for sync message size
> > > >
> > > > struct ip_vs_sync_mesg is both sent across the wire and
> > > > used internally to store IPVS synchronisation messages.
> > > >
> > > > Up until now the scheme used has been to convert the size field
> > > > to network byte order before sending a message on the wire and
> > > > convert it to host byte order when sending a message.
> > > >
> > > > This patch changes that scheme to always treat the field
> > > > as being network byte order. This seems appropriate as
> > > > the structure is sent across the wire. And by consistently
> > > > treating the field has network byte order it is now possible
> > > > to take advantage of sparse to flag any future miss-use.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c | 15 +++++----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > > > index 8e57077..c73778a 100644
> > > > --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > > > +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > > > @@ -255,7 +255,7 @@ struct ip_vs_sync_mesg_v0 {
> > > > struct ip_vs_sync_mesg {
> > > > __u8 reserved; /* must be zero */
> > > > __u8 syncid;
> > > > - __u16 size;
> > > > + __be16 size;
> > >
> > > It seems v0 should be changed too,
> > > ip_vs_send_sync_msg() handles both versions in sb->mesg.
> >
> > Thanks and sorry for missing that.
> > How about this?
> >
> > From: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ipvs: Use network byte order for sync message size
> >
> > struct ip_vs_sync_mesg and ip_vs_sync_mesg_v0 are both sent across the wire
> > and used internally to store IPVS synchronisation messages.
> >
> > Up until now the scheme used has been to convert the size field
> > to network byte order before sending a message on the wire and
> > convert it to host byte order when sending a message.
> >
> > This patch changes that scheme to always treat the field
> > as being network byte order. This seems appropriate as
> > the structure is sent across the wire. And by consistently
> > treating the field has network byte order it is now possible
> > to take advantage of sparse to flag any future miss-use.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It looks good
>
> Ack-by: Hans Schillstrom <hans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[snip]
Thanks, I have added your Acks and queued-up this this
change in ipvs-next.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
