On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 09:40:03AM -0400, Jon Maloy wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2026-07-09 21:36, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 05:56:53PM -0400, Jon Maloy wrote:
> > > In tap6_handler(), iov_tail_size(&data) - sizeof(*ip6h) computes
> > > the expected payload length. IOV_PEEK_HEADER() guarantees at least
> > > sizeof(*ip6h) bytes, but add an explicit check to guard the unsigned
> > > subtraction. A too-small tail would indicate a malformed packet, so
> > > skip it.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > v2: Use if-guard instead of assert(), to avoid runtime cost in
> > >      per-packet path and to let the static checker follow the logic.
> 
> I had the idea that the compiler may be smart enough to optimize it out,
> since it is logically redundant, as you note.

I mean, maybe, although I think that's moderately unlikely.  But
assert() is nothing but a macro that says essentially
	if (!condition) abort();
So if the compiler can optimise away the if, it can optimise away the
assert() as well.

> 
> /jon
> 
> > 
> > Why would the if be cheaper than an assert()?  The IOV_PEEK_HEADER()
> > already checks the length, so this check is definitely redundant - it
> > exists only for the benefit of static checkers.
> > 
> > > ---
> > >   tap.c | 5 ++++-
> > >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tap.c b/tap.c
> > > index 6d93c7ce..6fd5f595 100644
> > > --- a/tap.c
> > > +++ b/tap.c
> > > @@ -986,7 +986,10 @@ resume:
> > >   		if (!ip6h)
> > >   			continue;
> > > -		check = iov_tail_size(&data) - sizeof(*ip6h);
> > > +		check = iov_tail_size(&data);
> > > +		if (check < sizeof(*ip6h))
> > > +			continue;
> > > +		check -= sizeof(*ip6h);
> > >   		saddr = &ip6h->saddr;
> > >   		daddr = &ip6h->daddr;
> > > -- 
> > > 2.52.0
> > > 
> > 
> 

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson