lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Misalignment, MIPS, and ip_hdr(skb)->version
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 11:18:14PM +0100, Dan Lüdtke wrote:
>
> > On 8 Dec 2016, at 05:34, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed 2016-12-07 19:30:34 -0500, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> Your custom protocol should be designed in a way you get an aligned ip
> >> header. Most protocols of the IETF follow this mantra and it is always
> >> possible to e.g. pad options so you end up on aligned boundaries for the
> >> next header.
> >
> > fwiw, i'm not convinced that "most protocols of the IETF follow this
> > mantra". we've had multiple discussions in different protocol groups
> > about shaving or bloating by a few bytes here or there in different
> > protocols, and i don't think anyone has brought up memory alignment as
> > an argument in any of the discussions i've followed.
> >
>
> If the trade-off is between 1 padding byte and 2 byte alignment versus
> 3 padding bytes and 4 byte alignment I would definitely opt for 3
> padding bytes. I know how that waste feels like to a protocol
> designer, but I think it is worth it. Maybe the padding/reserved will
> be useful some day for an additional feature.

Note, if you do do this (hint, I think it is a good idea), require that
these reserved/pad fields always set to 0 for now, so that no one puts
garbage in them and then if you later want to use them, it will be a
mess.

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-12-11 08:15    [W:0.093 / U:4.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site