Hi, On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 13:26:30 -0700, pshe...@ovn.org wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Shmulik Ladkani > <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c > > index 1e329d4112..cc2c004838 100644 > > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c > > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c > > @@ -4537,7 +4537,7 @@ int skb_vlan_pop(struct sk_buff *skb) > > } else { > > if (unlikely((skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_8021Q) && > > skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_8021AD)) || > > - skb->len < VLAN_ETH_HLEN)) > > + skb->mac_len < VLAN_ETH_HLEN)) > > There is already check in __skb_vlan_pop() to validate skb for a vlan > header. So it is safe to drop this check entirely.
Seems validation in '__skb_vlan_pop' has slightly different semantics: unsigned int offset = skb->data - skb_mac_header(skb); __skb_push(skb, offset); err = skb_ensure_writable(skb, VLAN_ETH_HLEN); this pushes 'data' back to mac_header, then makes sure there's sufficient place in skb to _store_ VLAN_ETH_HLEN bytes (by pulling into linear part if needed, or erroring if skb is too small). There's no guarantee the original mac header was sized VLAN_ETH_HLEN. Interpretation of the following if (unlikely((skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_8021Q) && skb->protocol != htons(ETH_P_8021AD)) || skb->len < VLAN_ETH_HLEN)) return 0; in 'skb_vlan_pop' might be read as: "there's no tag, or protocol says its a tag but it's insufficient to pop, so lets do nothing". Is it superflous? Thanks, Shmulik