From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641EBA057B; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:19:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FEA51BEB1; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:19:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769FC1BDAC for ; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:19:06 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1585747145; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9Gu+DaDU6fMH6fC79P8/HOXRb2kwB5vp5ne34KqEE50=; b=ecKpk5fNqL642LusB/29jIOCR2nz7ElbdNxmCXu+zZSkSmZBwn64285B7ssUpNL5uEyKeV BFKwzmbDx2A+wlzVSBhxSMmkYH2c7kFvRWYbaJ441bTIBMjmfjHH5lmJskSJH+966ShwL5 1nj/L9++Azb1TQ+wQVHZDOQxM7IxiVM= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-96-8RvyJwBJMo-7ZDazHGGgaw-1; Wed, 01 Apr 2020 09:19:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 8RvyJwBJMo-7ZDazHGGgaw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE78802563; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 13:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-116-136.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.136]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8392910016EB; Wed, 1 Apr 2020 13:18:59 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Konstantin Ananyev , Sunil Kumar Kori , Allain Legacy , Anatoly Burakov , Chas Williams , Piotr Azarewicz , Bruce Richardson , David Marchand Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:18:48 -0400 Message-Id: <20200401131849.2209336-4-aconole@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20200401131849.2209336-1-aconole@redhat.com> References: <20200331160714.697790-1-aconole@redhat.com> <20200401131849.2209336-1-aconole@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] ip_frag: ipv6 fragments must not be resubmitted to fragmentation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" IPv6 only allows traffic source nodes to fragment, so submitting a packet with next header of IPPROTO_FRAGMENT would be invalid. Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole --- lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c b/lib/librte_ip_fr= ag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c index 820a5dc725..aebcfa4325 100644 --- a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c +++ b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv6_fragmentation.c @@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ rte_ipv6_fragment_packet(struct rte_mbuf *pkt_in, =20 =09in_hdr =3D rte_pktmbuf_mtod(pkt_in, struct rte_ipv6_hdr *); =20 +=09/* Fragmenting a fragmented packet?! */ +=09if (unlikely(in_hdr->proto =3D=3D IPPROTO_FRAGMENT)) +=09=09return -ENOTSUP; + =09in_seg =3D pkt_in; =09in_seg_data_pos =3D sizeof(struct rte_ipv6_hdr); =09out_pkt_pos =3D 0; --=20 2.25.1