In article <20030418.141014.17269641.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Fri, 18 Apr 2003
14:10:14 -0700 (PDT)), "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> I think it would be better if ipv6's upper-layer interface worked
> like ipv4's. ie. a < 0 return value means:
> next_proto =- ret;
> goto resubmit;
NO! Please, don't do this again (for now, at least).
This idea is what we had introduced the bug,
that was fixed by "[IPV6]: Fixed multiple mistake extension header handling."
We need to get the offset of the next header, in addition to the value
inet6_protocol function will return:
> 0: more header(s) follows; next header is pointed by skb->nh.raw[nhoff]
= 0: stop parsing on success; increment the statistics (nhoff is undefined)
< 0: stop parsing on failure (nhoff is undefined)
If upper-layer returns positive value, we continue parsing.
Then, if the skb->nh.raw[nhoff] is unknown, we send back the parameter problem
message with the offset to the unrecognized next header field.
> The less that is different between ipv4/ipv6 the better.
Agreed, but please note that IPv4 side would be required to be changed
1) May we have a new member to point the offset of the next header in
Then, we can remove *nhoffp from argument of inet6_protocol function.
(We will be cleaner handing of HbH option, too.)
2) change IPv4 upperlayer function to take struct sk_buff **.
If you are not in hurry, I'll take care of this.
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA