Hi, On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:21:17AM -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote: > On 16-03-03 09:32 AM, Phil Sutter wrote: > >> The patches look good to me. Phil, maybe get rid of that comment at the > >> top which was worrying about endianness. I think you fixed it. > > > > I'm not so sure. The kernel explicitly takes care to get the bit > > ordering right: > > > [..] > > act_pedit though just mangles the whole byte as-is, and if that was > > correct, we would not have to go that extra mile in struct iphdr, or do > > we? > > > > I meant in general - the note to say that there are endianes issues > should go.
Sorry, I didn't get that yet: To me it looks as if on a big-endian system, the code will actually change the Version field instead of IHL. Probably the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I'll try to get access to a big-endian system for testing. > >> These would of course require more of a larger setup to vet > >> and running tcpdump to check the correct bytes are being > >> modified. > > > > Indeed - That is how i normally would test. It is more complex. > Your scheme is good - but will not catch a kernel bug. Sure. OTOH the algorithm in act_pedit is not overly complex. Plus, fixing one side only prevents accidental workarounds of other side's bugs. > > Since I am lazy, I wanted to have as much automation as possible while > > testing. Therefore I just assumed that act_pedit does the right thing > > all the time, > > famous last words ;-> :) > > and iproute just has to feed it correct values. Given the > > scope of this patch, this is also completely sufficient. Of course, the > > tests/ directory would benefit more from a full test. But since > > automation then becomes tricky, I'm not sure it makes much sense to > > deliberately write code for that. > > > > Your test is still useful and i think should go into the tests dir. OK, I'll give it a thought. Thanks, Phil
