lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v3 2/3] net: icmp: introduce __ping_queue_rcv_skb() to report drop reasons
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 4:33 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2022-03-17 at 13:25 +0800, Menglong Dong wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:56 AM David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/16/22 12:31 AM, menglong8.dong@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ping.c b/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > > > index 3ee947557b88..9a1ea6c263f8 100644
> > > > --- a/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > > > +++ b/net/ipv4/ping.c
> > > > @@ -934,16 +934,24 @@ int ping_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len, int noblock,
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ping_recvmsg);
> > > >
> > > > -int ping_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > +static enum skb_drop_reason __ping_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk,
> > > > + struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > {
> > > > + enum skb_drop_reason reason;
> > > > +
> > > > pr_debug("ping_queue_rcv_skb(sk=%p,sk->num=%d,skb=%p)\n",
> > > > inet_sk(sk), inet_sk(sk)->inet_num, skb);
> > > > - if (sock_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb) < 0) {
> > > > - kfree_skb(skb);
> > > > + if (sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason(sk, skb, &reason) < 0) {
> > > > + kfree_skb_reason(skb, reason);
> > > > pr_debug("ping_queue_rcv_skb -> failed\n");
> > > > - return -1;
> > > > + return reason;
> > > > }
> > > > - return 0;
> > > > + return SKB_NOT_DROPPED_YET;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +int ping_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return __ping_queue_rcv_skb(sk, skb) ?: -1;
> > > > }
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ping_queue_rcv_skb);
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is a generic proto callback and you are now changing its return
> > > code in a way that seems to conflict with existing semantics
> >
> > The return value of ping_queue_rcv_skb() seems not changed.
> > In the previous code, -1 is returned on failure and 0 for success.
> > This logic isn't changed, giving __ping_queue_rcv_skb() != 0 means
> > failure and -1 is returned. Isn't it?
>
> With this patch, on failure __ping_queue_rcv_skb() returns 'reason' (>
> 0) and ping_queue_rcv_skb() returns the same value.
>
> On success __ping_queue_rcv_skb() returns SKB_NOT_DROPPED_YET (==0) and
> ping_queue_rcv_skb() return -1.
>
> You need to preserve the old ping_queue_rcv_skb() return values, under
> the same circumstances.

Oops...my mistake....:)

Thanks for your explanation!

Menglong Dong

>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-17 09:38    [W:0.207 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site