Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
Justin Iurman (1):
uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
include/uapi/linux/rpl.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--
2.17.1
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <redacted>
---
include/uapi/linux/rpl.h | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Date: 2021-01-24 04:55:44
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <redacted>
De: "Jakub Kicinski" [off-list ref]
À: "Justin Iurman" [off-list ref]
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
quoted
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <redacted>
Are you sure? This looks right to me.
AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one? If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
__u32 reserved:20,
pad:4,
cmpri:4,
cmpre:4;
When the RFC defines the header as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
From: David Ahern <hidden> Date: 2021-01-24 18:57:58
On 1/24/21 2:57 AM, Justin Iurman wrote:
quoted
De: "Jakub Kicinski" [off-list ref]
À: "Justin Iurman" [off-list ref]
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
quoted
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
quoted
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <redacted>
Are you sure? This looks right to me.
AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one? If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
__u32 reserved:20,
pad:4,
cmpri:4,
cmpre:4;
When the RFC defines the header as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
cross-checking with other headers - tcp and vxlan-gpe - this patch looks
correct.
What are you cross-checking?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-10, Section 3.1
header definition and vxlanhdr_gpe in include/net/vxlan.h. The
__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD part follows the definition in the spec.
Similarly for the TCP header - RFC header definition and tcphdr in
include/uapi/linux/tcp.h. TCP header shows doff + res1 order which is
comparable to cmpri + cpmre in this header as both sets are 4-bits and
start a word.
cross-checking with other headers - tcp and vxlan-gpe - this patch looks
correct.
What are you cross-checking?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-10, Section 3.1
header definition and vxlanhdr_gpe in include/net/vxlan.h. The
__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD part follows the definition in the spec.
Similarly for the TCP header - RFC header definition and tcphdr in
include/uapi/linux/tcp.h. TCP header shows doff + res1 order which is
comparable to cmpri + cpmre in this header as both sets are 4-bits and
start a word.
Ack, thanks for the pointers. The LE definition is broken as well,
then, right?
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Date: 2021-01-25 21:56:24
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:11:35 +0100 (CET) Justin Iurman wrote:
quoted
quoted
quoted
If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
__u32 reserved:20,
pad:4,
cmpri:4,
cmpre:4;
When the RFC defines the header as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
Well, you don't list the bit positions in the quote from the RFC, and
I'm not familiar with the IETF parlor. I'm only
Indeed, sorry for that. Bit positions are available if you follow the link to the RFC I referenced in the patch. It is always defined as network byte order by default (=BE).
quoted
comparing the LE
definition with the BE. If you claim the BE is wrong, then the LE is
wrong, too.
Actually, no, it’s not. If you have a look at the header definition from the RFC, you can see that the LE is correct (valid translation from BE, the *new* BE in this patch).
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net.git (refs/heads/master):
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:43 +0100 you wrote:
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
[...]
Le 25 janv. 2021 à 20:32, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] a écrit :
quoted
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:57:03 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
On 1/24/21 2:57 AM, Justin Iurman wrote:
quoted
quoted
De: "Jakub Kicinski" [off-list ref]
À: "Justin Iurman" [off-list ref]
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
quoted
quoted
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <redacted>
Are you sure? This looks right to me.
AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one?
Old one / existing is correct.
quoted
quoted
If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
__u32 reserved:20,
pad:4,
cmpri:4,
cmpre:4;
When the RFC defines the header as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
Well, you don't list the bit positions in the quote from the RFC, and
I'm not familiar with the IETF parlor. I'm only
Indeed, sorry for that. Bit positions are available if you follow the link to the RFC I referenced in the patch. It is always defined as network byte order by default (=BE).
comparing the LE
definition with the BE. If you claim the BE is wrong, then the LE is
wrong, too.
Actually, no, it’s not. If you have a look at the header definition from the RFC, you can see that the LE is correct (valid translation from BE, the *new* BE in this patch).
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Date: 2021-01-26 19:55:28
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:57:03 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
On 1/24/21 2:57 AM, Justin Iurman wrote:
quoted
quoted
De: "Jakub Kicinski" [off-list ref]
À: "Justin Iurman" [off-list ref]
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
quoted
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
quoted
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Next Header | Hdr Ext Len | Routing Type | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <redacted>
Are you sure? This looks right to me.
AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one?
Old one / existing is correct.
quoted
If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
__u32 reserved:20,
pad:4,
cmpri:4,
cmpre:4;
When the RFC defines the header as follows:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE | Pad | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
Well, you don't list the bit positions in the quote from the RFC, and
I'm not familiar with the IETF parlor. I'm only comparing the LE
definition with the BE. If you claim the BE is wrong, then the LE is
wrong, too.