Re: [DO_NOT_APPLY 1/2] integrate xdp-forwarder into net-vm

[Yureka <yuka@yuka.dev>]

Pointer arithmetics always work in pointer lengths, so + 1 is adding 
sizeof(struct ethhdr) bytes.

eth is the beginning of the eth header.

eth + 1 is the first byte after the eth header, or where the next eth 
header would begin in an array.


On 9/1/25 15:59, Alyssa Ross wrote:
> Yureka <yuka@yuka.dev> writes:
>
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Byte-count bounds check; check if current pointer + size of header
>>>> + * is after data_end.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if ((void *) (eth + 1) > data_end)
>>>> + return -1;
>>> This is checking that there's more data after the header, right? Is
>>> that something it's important for us to check?
>> The intent is to check that the entire eth hdr, which we casted a
>> pointer to, is within the data (length) of the packet before we
>> de-reference the pointer. So essentially, skipping packets which do not
>> have a full ethernet header, instead of reading from addresses which we
>> are not supposed to read from.
>>
>> When loading the XDP program, it is tested against an empty or very
>> small packet, and if it tries to access memory outside of the packet
>> bounds, it will refuse to load. So the BPF/XDP system ensures that these
>> kinds of packets are handled properly.
> Doesn't using > instead of >= check that the entire eth hdr **plus one
> byte** is within the packet, though? i.e. wouldn't this check fail if
> the data consisted entirely of an ethernet header? Is that the right
> thing to do? (Sorry if my maths is just wrong.)