On 8/11/20 5:10 AM, linmiaohe wrote:
> Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/10/20 5:28 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>> The skb_shared_info part of the data is assigned in the following
>>> loop. It is meaningless to do a memcpy here.
>>>
>>
>> Reminder : net-next is CLOSED.
>>
>
> Thanks for your remind. I would wait for it open.
>
>> This is not correct. We still have to copy _something_
>>
>> Something like :
>>
>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c index
>> 2828f6d5ba898a5e50ccce45589bf1370e474b0f..1c0519426c7ba4b04377fc8054c4223c135879ab
>> 100644
>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
>> @@ -5953,8 +5953,8 @@ static int pskb_carve_inside_nonlinear(struct sk_buff
>> *skb, const u32 off,
>> size = SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(ksize(data));
>>
>> memcpy((struct skb_shared_info *)(data + size),
>> - skb_shinfo(skb), offsetof(struct skb_shared_info,
>> - frags[skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags]));
>> + skb_shinfo(skb), offsetof(struct skb_shared_info,
>> + frags[0]));
>> +
>> if (skb_orphan_frags(skb, gfp_mask)) {
>> kfree(data);
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>
> This looks good. Will send a patch v2 soon. May I add a suggested-by tag of
> you ?
I would advise not using Suggested-by, as this would imply I suggested the idea
of changing
this function in the first place.
I will add a Reviewed-by: eventually if your v2 submission looks fine to me.
Thanks.
> Many thanks.
>
