On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 21:24 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Chenbo Feng writes:
>
> > This patch is still under working since it may have problem with
> > ip_fragment() call, did you applied it already? Should I send a revert
> > patch to you then?
>
> It does? I initially thought so too, but looking
On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 16:12 -0700, Chenbo Feng wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2017 12:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Chenbo Feng
> > Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:13:57 -0700
> >
> >>
> >> On 06/09/2017 12:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
> >>> From: Chenbo Feng
> >>> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:06:07 -0700
> >>>
On 06/09/2017 12:39 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Chenbo Feng
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:13:57 -0700
On 06/09/2017 12:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Chenbo Feng
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:06:07 -0700
From: Chenbo Feng
Move the initialization of skb->dev and skb->protocol from
ip6_finis
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Chenbo Feng
wrote:
> From: Chenbo Feng
>
> Move the initialization of skb->dev and skb->protocol from
> ip6_finish_output2 to ip6_output. This can make the skb->dev and
> skb->protocol information avalaible to the CGROUP eBPF filter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chenbo Feng
On 06/09/2017 12:24 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Chenbo Feng writes:
This patch is still under working since it may have problem with
ip_fragment() call, did you applied it already? Should I send a revert
patch to you then?
It does? I initially thought so too, but looking closer I believe the
ip6_
From: Chenbo Feng
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:13:57 -0700
>
>
> On 06/09/2017 12:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Chenbo Feng
>> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:06:07 -0700
>>
>>> From: Chenbo Feng
>>>
>>> Move the initialization of skb->dev and skb->protocol from
>>> ip6_finish_output2 to ip6_outp
From: Chenbo Feng
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:08:39 -0700
> Sorry, this is the wrong patch, please ignore it.
:-/ already applied it.
You must now send a relative fixup patch.
Chenbo Feng writes:
> This patch is still under working since it may have problem with
> ip_fragment() call, did you applied it already? Should I send a revert
> patch to you then?
It does? I initially thought so too, but looking closer I believe the
ip6_copy_metadata() calls in ip6_fragment() t
On 06/09/2017 12:08 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Chenbo Feng
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:06:07 -0700
From: Chenbo Feng
Move the initialization of skb->dev and skb->protocol from
ip6_finish_output2 to ip6_output. This can make the skb->dev and
skb->protocol information avalaible to the CGROU
From: Chenbo Feng
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 12:06:07 -0700
> From: Chenbo Feng
>
> Move the initialization of skb->dev and skb->protocol from
> ip6_finish_output2 to ip6_output. This can make the skb->dev and
> skb->protocol information avalaible to the CGROUP eBPF filter.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chen
From: Chenbo Feng
Move the initialization of skb->dev and skb->protocol from
ip6_finish_output2 to ip6_output. This can make the skb->dev and
skb->protocol information avalaible to the CGROUP eBPF filter.
Signed-off-by: Chenbo Feng
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet
---
net/ipv6/ip6_output.c | 6 +++---
11 matches
Mail list logo