2017-04-25, 17:39:09 +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi Sabrina, > > I think I may have beaten you to the punch here by a few minutes. :)
I said I was going to post a patch. Mail headers seem to disagree with you ;) > The difference between our two versions is that you don't re-add the > FRAGLIST attribute, whereas my patch does, and then it does the > dynamic allocation. I suspect this might be a bit more robust. It also > ensures that skb_cow_data is called on both paths. So perhaps let's > roll with mine? I don't see the "more robust" argument. Unless I missed something, encrypt was already handling fragments correctly. An skb with ->frag_list should have no skb_tailroom, so it will be linearized skb_copy_expand(). -- Sabrina
