| Message ID | 1493372840-24551-6-git-send-email-zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: > Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to SocketReadState. Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. > So we change net_fill_rstate() to read > struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think we'd better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about pack vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? Thanks > > Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > --- > include/net/net.h | 4 +++- > net/net.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/net/net.h b/include/net/net.h > index 402d913..865cb98 100644 > --- a/include/net/net.h > +++ b/include/net/net.h > @@ -115,9 +115,11 @@ typedef struct NICState { > } NICState; > > struct SocketReadState { > - int state; /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting data */ > + /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting vnet header length, 2 = getting data */ > + int state; > uint32_t index; > uint32_t packet_len; > + uint32_t vnet_hdr_len; > uint8_t buf[NET_BUFSIZE]; > SocketReadStateFinalize *finalize; > }; > diff --git a/net/net.c b/net/net.c > index f69260f..5a6b5ac 100644 > --- a/net/net.c > +++ b/net/net.c > @@ -1639,8 +1639,12 @@ int net_fill_rstate(SocketReadState *rs, const uint8_t *buf, int size) > unsigned int l; > > while (size > 0) { > - /* reassemble a packet from the network */ > - switch (rs->state) { /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting data */ > + /* Reassemble a packet from the network. > + * 0 = getting length. > + * 1 = getting vnet header length. > + * 2 = getting data. > + */ > + switch (rs->state) { > case 0: > l = 4 - rs->index; > if (l > size) { > @@ -1658,6 +1662,22 @@ int net_fill_rstate(SocketReadState *rs, const uint8_t *buf, int size) > } > break; > case 1: > + l = 4 - rs->index; > + if (l > size) { > + l = size; > + } > + memcpy(rs->buf + rs->index, buf, l); > + buf += l; > + size -= l; > + rs->index += l; > + if (rs->index == 4) { > + /* got vnet header length */ > + rs->vnet_hdr_len = ntohl(*(uint32_t *)rs->buf); > + rs->index = 0; > + rs->state = 2; > + } > + break; > + case 2: > l = rs->packet_len - rs->index; > if (l > size) { > l = size;
On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to SocketReadState. > > Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang > <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. OK. > >> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. > > This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think we'd > better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about pack > vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? > Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t vnet_hdr_len ? If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is always wrong. Thanks Zhang Chen > Thanks > >> >> Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> --- >> include/net/net.h | 4 +++- >> net/net.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/net/net.h b/include/net/net.h >> index 402d913..865cb98 100644 >> --- a/include/net/net.h >> +++ b/include/net/net.h >> @@ -115,9 +115,11 @@ typedef struct NICState { >> } NICState; >> struct SocketReadState { >> - int state; /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting data */ >> + /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting vnet header length, 2 = >> getting data */ >> + int state; >> uint32_t index; >> uint32_t packet_len; >> + uint32_t vnet_hdr_len; >> uint8_t buf[NET_BUFSIZE]; >> SocketReadStateFinalize *finalize; >> }; >> diff --git a/net/net.c b/net/net.c >> index f69260f..5a6b5ac 100644 >> --- a/net/net.c >> +++ b/net/net.c >> @@ -1639,8 +1639,12 @@ int net_fill_rstate(SocketReadState *rs, const >> uint8_t *buf, int size) >> unsigned int l; >> while (size > 0) { >> - /* reassemble a packet from the network */ >> - switch (rs->state) { /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting data */ >> + /* Reassemble a packet from the network. >> + * 0 = getting length. >> + * 1 = getting vnet header length. >> + * 2 = getting data. >> + */ >> + switch (rs->state) { >> case 0: >> l = 4 - rs->index; >> if (l > size) { >> @@ -1658,6 +1662,22 @@ int net_fill_rstate(SocketReadState *rs, const >> uint8_t *buf, int size) >> } >> break; >> case 1: >> + l = 4 - rs->index; >> + if (l > size) { >> + l = size; >> + } >> + memcpy(rs->buf + rs->index, buf, l); >> + buf += l; >> + size -= l; >> + rs->index += l; >> + if (rs->index == 4) { >> + /* got vnet header length */ >> + rs->vnet_hdr_len = ntohl(*(uint32_t *)rs->buf); >> + rs->index = 0; >> + rs->state = 2; >> + } >> + break; >> + case 2: >> l = rs->packet_len - rs->index; >> if (l > size) { >> l = size; > > > > . >
On 2017年05月03日 11:43, Zhang Chen wrote: > > > On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to >>> SocketReadState. >> >> Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang >> <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. > > OK. > >> >>> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >>> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. >> >> This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think we'd >> better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about pack >> vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? >> > > Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t > vnet_hdr_len ? > If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. > Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is always > wrong. > > Thanks > Zhang Chen Consider it's unlikely to send or receive packet >= 64K, we can reuse higher bits (e.g highest 8 bits). Then we can still read uint32_t and then check its highest 8 bits. If it was zero, we know vnet header is zero, if not it could be read as vnet header length. Thanks
On 05/03/2017 06:42 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2017年05月03日 11:43, Zhang Chen wrote: >> >> >> On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to >>>> SocketReadState. >>> >>> Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang >>> <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. >> >> OK. >> >>> >>>> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >>>> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. >>> >>> This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think >>> we'd better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about pack >>> vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? >>> >> >> Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t >> vnet_hdr_len ? >> If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. >> Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is always >> wrong. >> >> Thanks >> Zhang Chen > > Consider it's unlikely to send or receive packet >= 64K, we can reuse > higher bits (e.g highest 8 bits). Then we can still read uint32_t and > then check its highest 8 bits. If it was zero, we know vnet header is > zero, if not it could be read as vnet header length. I got your point, but in this way, packet size must < 64K, if size >=64K we still can't maintain the backward compatibility, For the packet sender that didn't know the potential packet size limit, I think we should make code explicitly declared like currently code. Otherwise we will make other people confused and make code difficult to maintain. Thanks Zhang Chen > > Thanks > > > > . >
On 2017年05月08日 11:47, Zhang Chen wrote: > > > On 05/03/2017 06:42 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年05月03日 11:43, Zhang Chen wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to >>>>> SocketReadState. >>>> >>>> Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang >>>> <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. >>> >>> OK. >>> >>>> >>>>> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >>>>> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. >>>> >>>> This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think >>>> we'd better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about pack >>>> vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? >>>> >>> >>> Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t >>> vnet_hdr_len ? >>> If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. >>> Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is always >>> wrong. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Zhang Chen >> >> Consider it's unlikely to send or receive packet >= 64K, we can reuse >> higher bits (e.g highest 8 bits). Then we can still read uint32_t and >> then check its highest 8 bits. If it was zero, we know vnet header is >> zero, if not it could be read as vnet header length. > > I got your point, but in this way, packet size must < 64K, if size > >=64K we still can't maintain the backward compatibility, > For the packet sender that didn't know the potential packet size > limit, I think we should make code explicitly declared like > currently code. Otherwise we will make other people confused and make > code difficult to maintain. > > Thanks > Zhang Chen > Yes, this is an possible issue in the future. Rethink about this, what if we just compare vnet header? Is there any issue of doing this? (Sorry, I remember this is a reason, but forget now). Thanks
On 05/09/2017 10:40 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2017年05月08日 11:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >> >> >> On 05/03/2017 06:42 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2017年05月03日 11:43, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>>> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to >>>>>> SocketReadState. >>>>> >>>>> Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang >>>>> <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >>>>>> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. >>>>> >>>>> This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think >>>>> we'd better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about pack >>>>> vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t >>>> vnet_hdr_len ? >>>> If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. >>>> Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is >>>> always wrong. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Zhang Chen >>> >>> Consider it's unlikely to send or receive packet >= 64K, we can >>> reuse higher bits (e.g highest 8 bits). Then we can still read >>> uint32_t and then check its highest 8 bits. If it was zero, we know >>> vnet header is zero, if not it could be read as vnet header length. >> >> I got your point, but in this way, packet size must < 64K, if size >> >=64K we still can't maintain the backward compatibility, >> For the packet sender that didn't know the potential packet size >> limit, I think we should make code explicitly declared like >> currently code. Otherwise we will make other people confused and make >> code difficult to maintain. >> >> Thanks >> Zhang Chen >> > > Yes, this is an possible issue in the future. Rethink about this, what > if we just compare vnet header? Is there any issue of doing this? > (Sorry, I remember this is a reason, but forget now). Yes, we can compare all packet with vnet header, the compare performance is very low. but we can't parse raw packet to tcp/udp/icmp packet, because we didn't know the vnet_hdr_len as the offset. Thanks Zhang Chen > > Thanks > > > . >
On 2017年05月09日 12:03, Zhang Chen wrote: > > > On 05/09/2017 10:40 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年05月08日 11:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 05/03/2017 06:42 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017年05月03日 11:43, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>>>> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to >>>>>>> SocketReadState. >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang >>>>>> <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. >>>>> >>>>> OK. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >>>>>>> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. >>>>>> >>>>>> This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think >>>>>> we'd better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about >>>>>> pack vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t >>>>> vnet_hdr_len ? >>>>> If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. >>>>> Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is >>>>> always wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Zhang Chen >>>> >>>> Consider it's unlikely to send or receive packet >= 64K, we can >>>> reuse higher bits (e.g highest 8 bits). Then we can still read >>>> uint32_t and then check its highest 8 bits. If it was zero, we know >>>> vnet header is zero, if not it could be read as vnet header length. >>> >>> I got your point, but in this way, packet size must < 64K, if size >>> >=64K we still can't maintain the backward compatibility, >>> For the packet sender that didn't know the potential packet size >>> limit, I think we should make code explicitly declared like >>> currently code. Otherwise we will make other people confused and >>> make code difficult to maintain. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Zhang Chen >>> >> >> Yes, this is an possible issue in the future. Rethink about this, >> what if we just compare vnet header? Is there any issue of doing >> this? (Sorry, I remember this is a reason, but forget now). > > Yes, we can compare all packet with vnet header, the compare > performance is very low. but we can't parse raw packet to tcp/udp/icmp > packet, because we didn't know the vnet_hdr_len as the offset. > > Thanks > Zhang Chen Aha, so I think it's time to use the new format but: - probably need a new option to enable this support for filter - let's don't touch socket backend, and make it still can work with filters whose vnet_hder is off Thanks > >> >> Thanks >> >> >> . >> >
On 05/09/2017 01:36 PM, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2017年05月09日 12:03, Zhang Chen wrote: >> >> >> On 05/09/2017 10:40 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2017年05月08日 11:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 05/03/2017 06:42 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2017年05月03日 11:43, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>>>>> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to >>>>>>>> SocketReadState. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang >>>>>>> <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >>>>>>>> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I think >>>>>>> we'd better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how about >>>>>>> pack vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t >>>>>> vnet_hdr_len ? >>>>>> If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. >>>>>> Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is >>>>>> always wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Zhang Chen >>>>> >>>>> Consider it's unlikely to send or receive packet >= 64K, we can >>>>> reuse higher bits (e.g highest 8 bits). Then we can still read >>>>> uint32_t and then check its highest 8 bits. If it was zero, we >>>>> know vnet header is zero, if not it could be read as vnet header >>>>> length. >>>> >>>> I got your point, but in this way, packet size must < 64K, if size >>>> >=64K we still can't maintain the backward compatibility, >>>> For the packet sender that didn't know the potential packet size >>>> limit, I think we should make code explicitly declared like >>>> currently code. Otherwise we will make other people confused and >>>> make code difficult to maintain. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Zhang Chen >>>> >>> >>> Yes, this is an possible issue in the future. Rethink about this, >>> what if we just compare vnet header? Is there any issue of doing >>> this? (Sorry, I remember this is a reason, but forget now). >> >> Yes, we can compare all packet with vnet header, the compare >> performance is very low. but we can't parse raw packet to >> tcp/udp/icmp packet, because we didn't know the vnet_hdr_len as the >> offset. >> >> Thanks >> Zhang Chen > > Aha, so I think it's time to use the new format but: > > - probably need a new option to enable this support for filter Do you means we should add the new option for every filter object like that: Now: -object filter-mirror,id=m0,netdev=hn0,queue=tx,outdev=mirror0 Feature: -object filter-mirror,id=m0,netdev=hn0,queue=tx,outdev=mirror0,has_vnet_hdr_len=on And colo-compare also need this option to get the vnet_hdr_len. > - let's don't touch socket backend, and make it still can work with > filters whose vnet_hder is off OK, Maybe we can add a new variable in net_fill_rstate(). Thanks Zhang Chen > > Thanks > >> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> . >>> >> > > > > . >
On 2017年05月09日 14:59, Zhang Chen wrote: > > > On 05/09/2017 01:36 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> >> On 2017年05月09日 12:03, Zhang Chen wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 05/09/2017 10:40 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017年05月08日 11:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 05/03/2017 06:42 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017年05月03日 11:43, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 05/02/2017 12:53 PM, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2017年04月28日 17:47, Zhang Chen wrote: >>>>>>>>> Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to >>>>>>>>> SocketReadState. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instead of saying this, you can add "Suggested-by: Jason Wang >>>>>>>> <jasowang@redhat.com>" above your sign-off. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So we change net_fill_rstate() to read >>>>>>>>> struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This makes me thinking about the backward compatibility. I >>>>>>>> think we'd better try to keep it as much as possible. E.g how >>>>>>>> about pack vnet_hdr_len into higher bits of size? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you means split uint32_t size to uint16_t size and uint16_t >>>>>>> vnet_hdr_len ? >>>>>>> If yes, we also can't keep compatibility with old version. >>>>>>> Old code send a uint32_t size, we read it as uint16_t size is >>>>>>> always wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> Zhang Chen >>>>>> >>>>>> Consider it's unlikely to send or receive packet >= 64K, we can >>>>>> reuse higher bits (e.g highest 8 bits). Then we can still read >>>>>> uint32_t and then check its highest 8 bits. If it was zero, we >>>>>> know vnet header is zero, if not it could be read as vnet header >>>>>> length. >>>>> >>>>> I got your point, but in this way, packet size must < 64K, if size >>>>> >=64K we still can't maintain the backward compatibility, >>>>> For the packet sender that didn't know the potential packet size >>>>> limit, I think we should make code explicitly declared like >>>>> currently code. Otherwise we will make other people confused and >>>>> make code difficult to maintain. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Zhang Chen >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, this is an possible issue in the future. Rethink about this, >>>> what if we just compare vnet header? Is there any issue of doing >>>> this? (Sorry, I remember this is a reason, but forget now). >>> >>> Yes, we can compare all packet with vnet header, the compare >>> performance is very low. but we can't parse raw packet to >>> tcp/udp/icmp packet, because we didn't know the vnet_hdr_len as the >>> offset. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Zhang Chen >> >> Aha, so I think it's time to use the new format but: >> >> - probably need a new option to enable this support for filter > > Do you means we should add the new option for every filter object like > that: > Now: > -object filter-mirror,id=m0,netdev=hn0,queue=tx,outdev=mirror0 > Feature: > -object > filter-mirror,id=m0,netdev=hn0,queue=tx,outdev=mirror0,has_vnet_hdr_len=on > > And colo-compare also need this option to get the vnet_hdr_len. Yes, and you can use make it short like "vnet_hdr". > > >> - let's don't touch socket backend, and make it still can work with >> filters whose vnet_hder is off > > OK, Maybe we can add a new variable in net_fill_rstate(). Right. Thanks > > Thanks > Zhang Chen > >> >> Thanks >> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> . >> >
diff --git a/include/net/net.h b/include/net/net.h index 402d913..865cb98 100644 --- a/include/net/net.h +++ b/include/net/net.h @@ -115,9 +115,11 @@ typedef struct NICState { } NICState; struct SocketReadState { - int state; /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting data */ + /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting vnet header length, 2 = getting data */ + int state; uint32_t index; uint32_t packet_len; + uint32_t vnet_hdr_len; uint8_t buf[NET_BUFSIZE]; SocketReadStateFinalize *finalize; }; diff --git a/net/net.c b/net/net.c index f69260f..5a6b5ac 100644 --- a/net/net.c +++ b/net/net.c @@ -1639,8 +1639,12 @@ int net_fill_rstate(SocketReadState *rs, const uint8_t *buf, int size) unsigned int l; while (size > 0) { - /* reassemble a packet from the network */ - switch (rs->state) { /* 0 = getting length, 1 = getting data */ + /* Reassemble a packet from the network. + * 0 = getting length. + * 1 = getting vnet header length. + * 2 = getting data. + */ + switch (rs->state) { case 0: l = 4 - rs->index; if (l > size) { @@ -1658,6 +1662,22 @@ int net_fill_rstate(SocketReadState *rs, const uint8_t *buf, int size) } break; case 1: + l = 4 - rs->index; + if (l > size) { + l = size; + } + memcpy(rs->buf + rs->index, buf, l); + buf += l; + size -= l; + rs->index += l; + if (rs->index == 4) { + /* got vnet header length */ + rs->vnet_hdr_len = ntohl(*(uint32_t *)rs->buf); + rs->index = 0; + rs->state = 2; + } + break; + case 2: l = rs->packet_len - rs->index; if (l > size) { l = size;
Address Jason Wang's comments add vnet header length to SocketReadState. So we change net_fill_rstate() to read struct {int size; int vnet_hdr_len; const uint8_t buf[];}. Signed-off-by: Zhang Chen <zhangchen.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- include/net/net.h | 4 +++- net/net.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)