Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752864AbcLKKrv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Dec 2016 05:47:51 -0500 Received: from unicorn.mansr.com ([81.2.72.234]:51748 "EHLO unicorn.mansr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751674AbcLKKrt (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Dec 2016 05:47:49 -0500 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= To: Willy Tarreau Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Netdev , LKML , David Miller , WireGuard mailing list Subject: Re: Misalignment, MIPS, and ip_hdr(skb)->version References: <20161207.145240.1636297838792223189.davem@davemloft.net> <20161207.193716.50344961208535056.davem@davemloft.net> <20161211080718.GA7253@1wt.eu> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 10:47:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20161211080718.GA7253@1wt.eu> (Willy Tarreau's message of "Sun, 11 Dec 2016 09:07:18 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1539 Lines: 35 Willy Tarreau writes: > Hi Jason, > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:20:04PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:37 AM, David Miller wrote: >> > You really have to land the IP header on a proper 4 byte boundary. >> > >> > I would suggest pushing 3 dummy garbage bytes of padding at the front >> > or the end of your header. >> >> Are you sure 3 bytes to get 4 byte alignment is really the best? > > It's always the best. However there's another option which should be > considered : maybe it's difficult but not impossible to move some bits > from the current protocol to remove one byte. That's not always easy, > and sometimes you cannot do it just for one bit. However after you run > through this exercise, if you notice there's really no way to shave > this extra byte, you'll realize there's no room left for future > extensions and you'll more easily accept to add 3 empty bytes for > this, typically protocol version, tags, qos or flagss that you'll be > happy to rely on for future versions of your protocol. Always include some way of extending the protocol in the future. A single bit is often enough. Require a value of zero initially, then if you ever want to change anything, setting it to one can indicate whatever you want, including a complete redesign of the header. Alternatively, a one-bit field can indicate the presence of an extended header yet to be defined. Then old software can still make sense of the basic header. -- M?ns Rullg?rd