Messages in this thread | | | From | Menglong Dong <> | Date | Thu, 17 Mar 2022 16:36:22 +0800 | Subject | Re: [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 >
| |