Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] ipv4: Don't reset ->flowi4_scope in ip_rt_fix_tos().

David Ahern <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.dccp,org.kernel.vger.netdev
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 4/22/22 4:53 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 08:30:52PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 4/20/22 5:21 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
>>> All callers already initialise ->flowi4_scope with RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE,
>>> either by manual field assignment, memset(0) of the whole structure or
>>> implicit structure initialisation of on-stack variables
>>> (RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE actually equals 0).
>>>
>>> Therefore, we don't need to always initialise ->flowi4_scope in
>>> ip_rt_fix_tos(). We only need to reduce the scope to RT_SCOPE_LINK when
>>> the special RTO_ONLINK flag is present in the tos.
>>>
>>> This will allow some code simplification, like removing
>>> ip_rt_fix_tos(). Also, the long term idea is to remove RTO_ONLINK
>>> entirely by properly initialising ->flowi4_scope, instead of
>>> overloading ->flowi4_tos with a special flag. Eventually, this will
>>> allow to convert ->flowi4_tos to dscp_t.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> It's important for the correctness of this patch that all callers
>>> initialise ->flowi4_scope to 0 (in one way or another). Auditing all of
>>> them is long, although each case is pretty trivial.
>>>
>>> If it helps, I can send a patch series that converts implicit
>>> initialisation of ->flowi4_scope with an explicit assignment to
>>> RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE. This would also have the advantage of making it
>>> clear to future readers that ->flowi4_scope _has_ to be initialised. I
>>> haven't sent such patch series to not overwhelm reviewers with trivial
>>> and not technically-required changes (there are 40+ places to modify,
>>> scattered over 30+ different files). But if anyone prefers explicit
>>> initialisation everywhere, then just let me know and I'll send such
>>> patches.
>>
>> There are a handful of places that open code the initialization of the
>> flow struct. I *think* I found all of them in 40867d74c374.
> 
> By open code, do you mean "doesn't use flowi4_init_output() nor
> ip_tunnel_init_flow()"? If so, I think there are many more.
> 

no, you made a comment about flow struct being initialized to 0 which
implicitly initializes scope. My comment is that there are only a few
places that do not use either `memset(flow, 0, sizeof())` or `struct
flowi4 fl4 = {}` to fully initialize the struct.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.