From: Shmulik Ladkani
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:07:57 +0300
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:13:45 +0800 Eli Cooper wrote:
>> Maybe we
>> should clear IP6CB in ip6tunnel_xmit(), rather than in every tunnel's codes?
>
> This seems reasonable.
>
> A potential issue might be whether it needs to be done e
Hi,
On Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:13:45 +0800 Eli Cooper wrote:
> So I think it is best that all the
> IP6CB gets cleared before it is pushed to the next layer.
Just a comparison to the ipv4 world:
All tunnels (udp/ip based) end up calling iptunnel_xmit(), which:
- scrubs the skb
- clears any IPCB r
On 2016/10/28 10:17, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Eli Cooper wrote:
>> > skb->cb may contain data from previous layers. In the observed scenario,
>> > the garbage data were misinterpreted as IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size, so
>> > that small packets sent through the tunnel are
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Eli Cooper wrote:
> skb->cb may contain data from previous layers. In the observed scenario,
> the garbage data were misinterpreted as IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size, so
> that small packets sent through the tunnel are mistakenly fragmented.
>
> This patch clears the co
skb->cb may contain data from previous layers. In the observed scenario,
the garbage data were misinterpreted as IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size, so
that small packets sent through the tunnel are mistakenly fragmented.
This patch clears the control buffer for the next layer, after an IPv6
header is inst
