Akihiko Odaki wrote:

When I implemented virtio's hash-related features to tun/tap [1],
I found tun/tap does not fill the entire region reserved for the virtio
header, leaving some uninitialized hole in the middle of the buffer
after read()/recvmesg().

This series fills the uninitialized hole. More concretely, the
num_buffers field will be initialized with 1, and the other fields will
be inialized with 0. Setting the num_buffers field to 1 is mandated by
virtio 1.0 [2].

The change to virtio header is preceded by another change that refactors
tun and tap to unify their virtio-related code.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241008-rss-v5-0-f3cf68df005d@daynix.com (local)
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241227084256-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org/ (local)

Signed-off-by: Akihiko Odaki <redacted>
---
Changes in v2:
- Fixed num_buffers endian.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250108-tun-v1-0-67d784b34374@daynix.com (local)

---
Akihiko Odaki (3):
      tun: Unify vnet implementation
      tun: Pad virtio header with zero
      tun: Set num_buffers for virtio 1.0

Patches should explicitly to net or net-next.

In this case if the undefined data would be a bug, that would target
net. It sounds as if this is only relevant with the upcoming hash
changes, so then it too can target net-next. If needed at all.

The first patch is clearly net-next material.

I would prefer to work on that independent from the rest. I'm in
favor of deduplicating logic across tun/tap/pf_packet. Have taken a
stab, but haven't gotten to a concrete series. This indeed a valid
deduplication effort.

We have to make sure that the code is identical between tun and tap,
or where it isn't (due to one of the two having received a change to
such code, but the other not) explicitly note that in the commit
message. As then it is a behavioral change.

Anyway, let's send the undefined data, hash and dedup changes
independently. And preferably one after the other, rather than
having concurrent conversations across threads.