On (02/01/16 19:56), Alexander Duyck wrote: > > @@ -394,7 +407,7 @@ ip_proto_again: > > data, hlen, &_eth); > > if (!eth) > > goto out_bad; > > - proto = eth->h_proto; > > + proto = get_unaligned_be16(ð->h_proto); > > nhoff += sizeof(*eth); > > } > > This piece doesn't make any sense to me. It is already only 2 bytes > wide. I'm not sure why we should be seeing this trigger an unaligned > access. Are you sure it wasn't something like the keyid causing the > issue? I'd be interested in seeing what the compiler did here that it > is triggering the problem.
You're right- I was getting blinded by all the unaligned-access messages swimming by and making a mistake. It was actually the memcpy(&key_addrs->v4addrs, &iph->saddr, sizeof(key_addrs->v4addrs)); The assembler code is this: 0x8d3298 <__skb_flow_dissect+500>: ld [ %l5 + 0xc ], %g3 0x8d329c <__skb_flow_dissect+504>: add %i2, %g1, %g2 0x8d32a0 <__skb_flow_dissect+508>: st %g3, [ %i2 + %g1 ] 0x8d32a4 <__skb_flow_dissect+512>: ld [ %l5 + 0x10 ], %g1 0x8d32a8 <__skb_flow_dissect+516>: st %g1, [ %g2 + 4 ] 0x8d32ac <__skb_flow_dissect+520>: mov 2, %g1 I get unaligned access traps at __skb_flow_dissect+500 and __skb_flow_dissect+512 (corresponding to saddr and daddr), once for each interface (gretap/eth0 and eth1). --Sowmini