Hi Willem, On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Willem de Bruijn <will...@google.com> wrote: > Interesting. 9c7077622dd9 only extended the check from tpacket_snd to > packet_snd to make the two paths equivalent. The existing check had the > ominous statement > > /* net device doesn't like empty head */ OK, I guess it's best to find out what the purpose of this comment is.
> so allowing a header-only packet while correct in your case may not be > safe in some edge cases (specific device drivers?). I'm wondering how a good fix would look like (I can think of a few things, like renaming hard_header_len to something min_packet_size)? I am open for suggestions since I have zero knowledge about the inner workings of the packet framework. > This was also discussed previously > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg309677.html > > In any case, I don't think that reverting the patch and restoring the old > inconsistent state is a fix. I totally agree with you that it's a bad fix if this means that we could break other drivers. My primary goal was to fix PPPoE connections - I guess I should have simply added "RFC" to the subject. Regards, Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
