netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Move shaper control information into skb->cb

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move shaper control information into skb->cb
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 02:01:35 +0200
Cc: ak@xxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200004242347.QAA02669@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from David S. Miller on Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 01:53:51AM +0200
References: <20000424234623.A1446@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200004242306.QAA02602@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20000425015008.A1689@xxxxxxxxxxx> <200004242347.QAA02669@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 01:53:51AM +0200, David S. Miller wrote:
>    Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:50:08 +0200
>    From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx>
> 
>    > I know intuitively that once, for example, tcp_transmit_skb has
>    > built the TCP header the control block can be clobbered by any
>    > further usage.  We should really document this, at least in a
>    > comment above that function.
> 
>    I documented it in skbuff.h (``is owned by whoever has the skb queued'')
> 
>    BTW, the hippi private fields should be probably moved there too.
> 
> This brings up an important issue.  What if then, we'd like to shape
> packets over HIPPI?  It sounds really stupid, I know, but the point
> is that once we start allowing software or hardware devices to use the
> CB for their private per-packet state, we can run into problems if one
> is a pseudo device in front of another.
> 
> If shaper mucks with it's CB fields, and once it has sent the packet
> off to the real device it never references that skb header again, then
> at least in this case there is no problem.  Is that what is happening
> here?
> 
Not a problem. Shaper calls skb_clone before submitting the data.


-Andi

-- 
This is like TV. I don't like TV.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>