Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756414Ab0AMVNv (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:13:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753318Ab0AMVNu (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:13:50 -0500 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.25]:45458 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755416Ab0AMVNt (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:13:49 -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=iCBOkzwsV8hI3GYYegZ/BUFr0yCnXzB7v6Yrt1Zz9ptL/MSrHpGDEdzKXiJJdwOsNs Rm0r8M7XI/d+Sg2mh/67IKa7kIGghm2W9gknGawd0+6meYl2ELky7o483pF4nY3hZ0yd 3dMYRWvCjagizjL2fHXP62Rey3fOzPyFawVvM= Message-ID: <4B4E378A.7040506@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:13:46 -0500 From: William Allen Simpson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: Linux Kernel Developers , Linux Kernel Network Developers , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ilpo_J=E4rvinen?= , Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tcp: harmonize tcp_vx_rcv header length assumptions References: <4B49D001.4000302@gmail.com> <4B4DA4F4.6060007@gmail.com> <20100113115617.GA24818@basil.fritz.box> <4B4DE887.6030602@gmail.com> <20100113155323.GB24818@basil.fritz.box> <4B4E23E0.4000007@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4B4E23E0.4000007@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: 856 Lines: 28 I did today's tests on tcp_ipv4, but part of this harmonization is to make v4 and v6 match up better. As I was examining line by line, one of the things that leaps out is that ipv4 has nf_reset(skb): tcp_ipv4: if (!xfrm4_policy_check(sk, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb)) goto discard_and_relse; nf_reset(skb); if (sk_filter(sk, skb)) goto discard_and_relse; tcp_ipv6: if (!xfrm6_policy_check(sk, XFRM_POLICY_IN, skb)) goto discard_and_relse; if (sk_filter(sk, skb)) goto discard_and_relse; Does anybody know why? Should ipv6 have it? Or at least a comment explaining the reasoning for the omission? -- 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/