On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 3:15 PM Josh Hunt <joh...@akamai.com> wrote:
>
> Commit dfec0ee22c0a ("udp: Record gso_segs when supporting UDP segmentation 
> offload")
> added gso_segs calculation, but incorrectly got sizeof() the pointer and
> not the underlying data type. It also does not account for v6 UDP GSO segs.
>
> Fixes: dfec0ee22c0a ("udp: Record gso_segs when supporting UDP segmentation 
> offload")
> Signed-off-by: Josh Hunt <joh...@akamai.com>
> ---
>  net/ipv4/udp.c | 2 +-
>  net/ipv6/udp.c | 2 ++
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> index cf755156a684..be98d0b8f014 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> @@ -856,7 +856,7 @@ static int udp_send_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct 
> flowi4 *fl4,
>
>                 skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size = cork->gso_size;
>                 skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type = SKB_GSO_UDP_L4;
> -               skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs = DIV_ROUND_UP(len - sizeof(uh),
> +               skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs = DIV_ROUND_UP(len - sizeof(*uh),
>                                                          cork->gso_size);
>                 goto csum_partial;
>         }
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/udp.c b/net/ipv6/udp.c
> index aae4938f3dea..eb9a9934ac05 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/udp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/udp.c
> @@ -1143,6 +1143,8 @@ static int udp_v6_send_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct 
> flowi6 *fl6,
>
>                 skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size = cork->gso_size;
>                 skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type = SKB_GSO_UDP_L4;
> +               skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs = DIV_ROUND_UP(len - sizeof(*uh),
> +                                                        cork->gso_size);
>                 goto csum_partial;
>         }
>

Fix looks good to me.

You might also want to add the original commit since you are also
addressing IPv6 changes which are unrelated to my commit that your
referenced:
Fixes: bec1f6f69736 ("udp: generate gso with UDP_SEGMENT")

Reviewed-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.du...@linux.intel.com>

Reply via email to