Hi, > But I wonder if it breaks things, since you do the assignment so late > we no longer handle the case where the VLAN device's MAC address > matches the packet MAC address and the top-level device's does not. > > That's handled by logic in vlan_do_receive() which checks for > PACKET_OTHERHOST. > > But you're going to unconditionally set PACKET_OTHERHOST, overriding > any decision that code makes.
I don't think that that's actually the case. If vlan_do_receive() reaches the MAC address check (that is, there is a vlan device for the tag), it will either clear skb->vlan_tci and return true (which also causes goto another_round), or return false with a NULL skb, which causes goto out. The only way to reach the new check without another_round and with a non-zero tag is the first return false, which happens if there is no device for the tag, in which case setting PACKET_OTHERHOST should be the right thing to do (in particular, a non-existent vlan device won't have the frame's MAC address). I am assuming that rx_handlers don't modify the frame unless they return RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER. > This turns out to be a really non-trivial area and it's going to take > some time to get this right and audit the change appropriately. I wouldn't want to disagree with that ;-) Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
