Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751621Ab0ALRLj (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:11:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751245Ab0ALRLi (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:11:38 -0500 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.27]:32584 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751204Ab0ALRLh (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:11:37 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=p80m07KWS70hMwyRKjS2Qckj+fFgyyH3SIK+F2hFfMLC07qPncphKQnfN+CwN7HYIf c4YOBZ1fzYGcMh1LUL0xZOtm5XaQnBl6JfU+NQiRftL6f5vfMJCWzYcQtLcZPizhcEio JTaY7YIG4sn3wJt4qVMS0j3mACrvjDlT6RZlY= Message-ID: <4B4CAD45.5080606@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:11:33 -0500 From: William Allen Simpson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Dumazet CC: Linux Kernel Developers , Linux Kernel Network Developers , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions References: <4B49D001.4000302@gmail.com> <4B4C4962.8040207@gmail.com> <4B4C52EA.6070705@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B4C52EA.6070705@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 931 Lines: 21 Eric Dumazet wrote: > Seems fine, but : > > 1) What means the "Transformed ?" you wrote several times ? > The only reason that I've been able to figure out for having the skb->len test in those places is the preceding xfrm4_policy_check() or xfrm6_policy_check() must be able to shrink the skb->len? When I did the original transform stuff in other code circa 1995, I'd envisioned IP length or link layer (PPP) length shrinking (removing padding after block ciphers) -- and apparently this implementation extended that concept to transport layer, too. Personally, I'd prefer that a single test be placed in the appropriate spot in the xfrm* functions, instead. Anybody know where? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/