On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 08:55:37AM -0500, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> to debugging messages! In some circumstances, debug messages are
> always produced; in several others, net_ratelimit() is called to
> decided whether to print an error (but why in these cases and not
> others?); and in many ca
Pekka Pietikainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:46:35AM -0500, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
>> Having further reviewed my code, I have changed my mind; the
>> ieee80211_crypt_tkip routines are not designed to be responsible for
>> creating enough headroom and tailroom.
>
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:46:35AM -0500, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> Having further reviewed my code, I have changed my mind; the
> ieee80211_crypt_tkip routines are not designed to be responsible for
> creating enough headroom and tailroom. The "hostap" driver should be
> doing this. In fact,
Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
>
>> Having further reviewed my code, I have changed my mind; the
>> ieee80211_crypt_tkip routines are not designed to be responsible for
>> creating enough headroom and tailroom. The "hostap" driver should be
>> doing this.
>
Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
>
> Having further reviewed my code, I have changed my mind; the
> ieee80211_crypt_tkip routines are not designed to be responsible for
> creating enough headroom and tailroom. The "hostap" driver should be
> doing this. In fact, I now see that the "hostap" driver act
I wrote:
> After frustrating days of hung TCP connections, I have determined that
> the encryption routines in net/iee80211/ieee80211_crypt_tkip.c should
> be more aggressive in providing themselves with enough packet tailroom
> to perform their encryption.
Having further reviewed my code, I have
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> - Would the expression "err ? err : -1" have served me better?
>> - Do error codes mean anything here, or should I simply say "return -1"?
>
> err ?: -1
>
> should work.
Actually, you should probably use a more meaningful error code
than -1.
--
Visit O
Brandon Craig Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Egads! You are correct.
>
> My intention was to preserve the value of "err" if an unsuccessful
> value was returned by skb_padto(), and otherwise to return "-1" which
> seemed the popular value used for errors elsewhere in the code.
>
> - Woul
Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> + if (skb_tailroom(skb) < 4) {
> + int err;
> + err = skb_padto(skb, skb->len + 4);
> + if (unlikely(err || skb_tailroom(skb) < 4)) {
> + printk(KERN_DEBUG "Failed to increase tailroom"
> +
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 21:31, Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
> The attached patch, if applied to kernel 2.6.18, solves both problems.
> I am not very familiar with the conventions of kernel networking code,
> so there may be better ways of fixing this; but the patch should
> illustrate the general
Mitchell Blank Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brandon Craig Rhodes wrote:
>
>> +if (unlikely(err || skb_tailroom(skb) < 4)) {
>> +printk(KERN_DEBUG "Failed to increase tailroom"
>> + " for TKIP encrypt");
>> +return er
After frustrating days of hung TCP connections, I have determined that
the encryption routines in net/iee80211/ieee80211_crypt_tkip.c should
be more aggressive in providing themselves with enough packet tailroom
to perform their encryption.
They presently will only perform encryption if the packet
12 matches
Mail list logo
