On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Jiri Benc <jb...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:45:56 -0700, Pravin B Shelar wrote:
>> @@ -2006,11 +2004,34 @@ static void vxlan_xmit_one(struct sk_buff *skb,
>> struct net_device *dev,
>> info = skb_tunnel_info(skb);
>>
>> if (rdst) {
>> + dst = &rdst->remote_ip;
>> + if (vxlan_addr_any(dst)) {
>> + if (did_rsc) {
>> + /* short-circuited back to local bridge */
>> + vxlan_encap_bypass(skb, vxlan, vxlan);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + goto drop;
>> + }
>> +
>> dst_port = rdst->remote_port ? rdst->remote_port :
>> vxlan->cfg.dst_port;
>> vni = rdst->remote_vni;
>> - dst = &rdst->remote_ip;
>> src = &vxlan->cfg.saddr;
>> dst_cache = &rdst->dst_cache;
>> + md->gbp = skb->mark;
>> + ttl = vxlan->cfg.ttl;
>> + if (!ttl && vxlan_addr_multicast(dst))
>> + ttl = 1;
>> +
>> + tos = vxlan->cfg.tos;
>> + if (tos == 1)
>> + tos = ip_tunnel_get_dsfield(old_iph, skb);
>
> Uninitialized old_iph.
>
It is initialized in begining of this function.
> Besides, you can't do this, having TOS, TTL, etc. specified is
> perfectly legal for lwtunnel interfaces, too.
>
TOS and TTL is initialized for LWT just else block. so I do not see
any changes compared to current implementation.
Can you elaborate on your concerns?
