diff mbox series

[net,1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr

Message ID 20210121220044.22361-2-justin.iurman@uliege.be (mailing list archive)
State Accepted
Commit 07d46d93c9acdfe0614071d73c415dd5f745cc6e
Delegated to: Netdev Maintainers
Headers show
Series Fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
netdev/cover_letter success Link
netdev/fixes_present fail Series targets non-next tree, but doesn't contain any Fixes tags
netdev/patch_count success Link
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for net
netdev/subject_prefix success Link
netdev/cc_maintainers success CCed 3 of 3 maintainers
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/verify_signedoff success Link
netdev/module_param success Was 0 now: 0
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/verify_fixes success Link
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 13 lines checked
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/header_inline success Link
netdev/stable success Stable not CCed

Commit Message

Justin Iurman Jan. 21, 2021, 10 p.m. UTC
Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.

  [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3

Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
---
 include/uapi/linux/rpl.h | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Jakub Kicinski Jan. 24, 2021, 4:54 a.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
> Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
> endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
> 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
> 
>   [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
> 
> Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>

Are you sure? This looks right to me.

> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
>  		pad:4,
>  		reserved1:16;
>  #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> -	__u32	reserved:20,
> +	__u32	cmpri:4,
> +		cmpre:4,
>  		pad:4,
> -		cmpri:4,
> -		cmpre:4;
> +		reserved:20;
>  #else
>  #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
>  #endif
Justin Iurman Jan. 24, 2021, 9:57 a.m. UTC | #2
> De: "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>
> À: "Justin Iurman" <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
> Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
> Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr

> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
>> Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
>> endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
>> 
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> 
>> This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
>> 
>>   [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
> 
> Are you sure? This looks right to me.

AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one? If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:

#elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
	__u32	reserved:20,
		pad:4,
		cmpri:4,
		cmpre:4;

When the RFC defines the header as follows:

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.

>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
>>  		pad:4,
>>  		reserved1:16;
>>  #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>> -	__u32	reserved:20,
>> +	__u32	cmpri:4,
>> +		cmpre:4,
>>  		pad:4,
>> -		cmpri:4,
>> -		cmpre:4;
>> +		reserved:20;
>>  #else
>>  #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
> >  #endif
David Ahern Jan. 24, 2021, 6:57 p.m. UTC | #3
On 1/24/21 2:57 AM, Justin Iurman wrote:
>> De: "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>
>> À: "Justin Iurman" <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
>> Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
>> Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr
> 
>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:
>>> Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
>>> endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
>>>
>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>> |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>
>>> This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
>>>
>>>   [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
>>
>> Are you sure? This looks right to me.
> 
> AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one? If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
> 
> #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> 	__u32	reserved:20,
> 		pad:4,
> 		cmpri:4,
> 		cmpre:4;
> 
> When the RFC defines the header as follows:
> 
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
> 
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
>>>  		pad:4,
>>>  		reserved1:16;
>>>  #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>>> -	__u32	reserved:20,
>>> +	__u32	cmpri:4,
>>> +		cmpre:4,
>>>  		pad:4,
>>> -		cmpri:4,
>>> -		cmpre:4;
>>> +		reserved:20;
>>>  #else
>>>  #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
>>>  #endif

cross-checking with other headers - tcp and vxlan-gpe - this patch looks
correct.
Jakub Kicinski Jan. 25, 2021, 7:32 p.m. UTC | #4
On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:57:03 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/24/21 2:57 AM, Justin Iurman wrote:
> >> De: "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>
> >> À: "Justin Iurman" <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
> >> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
> >> Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
> >> Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr  
> >   
> >> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:  
> >>> Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
> >>> endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
> >>>
> >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>> |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
> >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
> >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>>
> >>> This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
> >>>
> >>>   [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>  
> >>
> >> Are you sure? This looks right to me.  
> > 
> > AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one? 

Old one / existing is correct.

> > If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
> > 
> > #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> > 	__u32	reserved:20,
> > 		pad:4,
> > 		cmpri:4,
> > 		cmpre:4;
> > 
> > When the RFC defines the header as follows:
> > 
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
> > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> > 
> > The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.

Well, you don't list the bit positions in the quote from the RFC, and
I'm not familiar with the IETF parlor. I'm only comparing the LE
definition with the BE. If you claim the BE is wrong, then the LE is
wrong, too.

> >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> >>> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
> >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> >>> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
> >>>  		pad:4,
> >>>  		reserved1:16;
> >>>  #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> >>> -	__u32	reserved:20,
> >>> +	__u32	cmpri:4,
> >>> +		cmpre:4,
> >>>  		pad:4,
> >>> -		cmpri:4,
> >>> -		cmpre:4;
> >>> +		reserved:20;
> >>>  #else
> >>>  #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
> >>>  #endif  
> 
> cross-checking with other headers - tcp and vxlan-gpe - this patch looks
> correct.

What are you cross-checking?
David Ahern Jan. 25, 2021, 8:12 p.m. UTC | #5
On 1/25/21 12:32 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>>>> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>>>> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
>>>>>  		pad:4,
>>>>>  		reserved1:16;
>>>>>  #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>>>>> -	__u32	reserved:20,
>>>>> +	__u32	cmpri:4,
>>>>> +		cmpre:4,
>>>>>  		pad:4,
>>>>> -		cmpri:4,
>>>>> -		cmpre:4;
>>>>> +		reserved:20;
>>>>>  #else
>>>>>  #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
>>>>>  #endif  
>>
>> cross-checking with other headers - tcp and vxlan-gpe - this patch looks
>> correct.
> 
> What are you cross-checking?
> 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-10, Section 3.1
header definition and vxlanhdr_gpe in include/net/vxlan.h. The
__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD part follows the definition in the spec.

Similarly for the TCP header - RFC header definition and tcphdr in
include/uapi/linux/tcp.h. TCP header shows doff + res1 order which is
comparable to cmpri + cpmre in this header as both sets are 4-bits and
start a word.
Jakub Kicinski Jan. 25, 2021, 8:25 p.m. UTC | #6
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 13:12:42 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/25/21 12:32 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> >>>>> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
> >>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> >>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
> >>>>> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
> >>>>>  		pad:4,
> >>>>>  		reserved1:16;
> >>>>>  #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> >>>>> -	__u32	reserved:20,
> >>>>> +	__u32	cmpri:4,
> >>>>> +		cmpre:4,
> >>>>>  		pad:4,
> >>>>> -		cmpri:4,
> >>>>> -		cmpre:4;
> >>>>> +		reserved:20;
> >>>>>  #else
> >>>>>  #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
> >>>>>  #endif    
> >>
> >> cross-checking with other headers - tcp and vxlan-gpe - this patch looks
> >> correct.  
> > 
> > What are you cross-checking?
> >   
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-nvo3-vxlan-gpe-10, Section 3.1
> header definition and vxlanhdr_gpe in include/net/vxlan.h. The
> __BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD part follows the definition in the spec.
> 
> Similarly for the TCP header - RFC header definition and tcphdr in
> include/uapi/linux/tcp.h. TCP header shows doff + res1 order which is
> comparable to cmpri + cpmre in this header as both sets are 4-bits and
> start a word.

Ack, thanks for the pointers. The LE definition is broken as well,
then, right?
Justin Iurman Jan. 25, 2021, 9:11 p.m. UTC | #7
> Le 25 janv. 2021 à 20:32, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> a écrit :
> 
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 11:57:03 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
>> On 1/24/21 2:57 AM, Justin Iurman wrote:
>>>> De: "Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>
>>>> À: "Justin Iurman" <justin.iurman@uliege.be>
>>>> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, "alex aring" <alex.aring@gmail.com>
>>>> Envoyé: Dimanche 24 Janvier 2021 05:54:44
>>>> Objet: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] uapi: fix big endian definition of ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr  
>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 23:00:44 +0100 Justin Iurman wrote:  
>>>>> Following RFC 6554 [1], the current order of fields is wrong for big
>>>>> endian definition. Indeed, here is how the header looks like:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>> |  Next Header  |  Hdr Ext Len  | Routing Type  | Segments Left |
>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
>>>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>>>> 
>>>>> This patch reorders fields so that big endian definition is now correct.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6554#section-3
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Justin Iurman <justin.iurman@uliege.be>  
>>>> 
>>>> Are you sure? This looks right to me.  
>>> 
>>> AFAIK, yes. Did you mean the old (current) one looks right, or the new one? 
> 
> Old one / existing is correct.
> 
>>> If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
>>> 
>>> #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>>>    __u32    reserved:20,
>>>        pad:4,
>>>        cmpri:4,
>>>        cmpre:4;
>>> 
>>> When the RFC defines the header as follows:
>>> 
>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
>>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>>> 
>>> The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.
> 
> Well, you don't list the bit positions in the quote from the RFC, and
> I'm not familiar with the IETF parlor. I'm only

Indeed, sorry for that. Bit positions are available if you follow the link to the RFC I referenced in the patch. It is always defined as network byte order by default (=BE).

> comparing the LE
> definition with the BE. If you claim the BE is wrong, then the LE is
> wrong, too.

Actually, no, it’s not. If you have a look at the header definition from the RFC, you can see that the LE is correct (valid translation from BE, the *new* BE in this patch).

>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>>>> index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
>>>>> @@ -28,10 +28,10 @@ struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
>>>>>        pad:4,
>>>>>        reserved1:16;
>>>>> #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
>>>>> -    __u32    reserved:20,
>>>>> +    __u32    cmpri:4,
>>>>> +        cmpre:4,
>>>>>        pad:4,
>>>>> -        cmpri:4,
>>>>> -        cmpre:4;
>>>>> +        reserved:20;
>>>>> #else
>>>>> #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
>>>>> #endif  
>> 
>> cross-checking with other headers - tcp and vxlan-gpe - this patch looks
>> correct.
> 
> What are you cross-checking?
Jakub Kicinski Jan. 25, 2021, 9:47 p.m. UTC | #8
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 22:11:35 +0100 (CET) Justin Iurman wrote:
> >>> If you meant the old/current one, well, I don't understand why the big endian definition would look like this:
> >>> 
> >>> #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
> >>>    __u32    reserved:20,
> >>>        pad:4,
> >>>        cmpri:4,
> >>>        cmpre:4;
> >>> 
> >>> When the RFC defines the header as follows:
> >>> 
> >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>> | CmprI | CmprE |  Pad  |               Reserved                |
> >>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >>> 
> >>> The little endian definition looks fine. But, when it comes to big endian, you define fields as you see them on the wire with the same order, right? So the current big endian definition makes no sense. It looks like it was a wrong mix with the little endian conversion.  
> > 
> > Well, you don't list the bit positions in the quote from the RFC, and
> > I'm not familiar with the IETF parlor. I'm only  
> 
> Indeed, sorry for that. Bit positions are available if you follow the link to the RFC I referenced in the patch. It is always defined as network byte order by default (=BE).
> 
> > comparing the LE
> > definition with the BE. If you claim the BE is wrong, then the LE is
> > wrong, too.  
> 
> Actually, no, it’s not. If you have a look at the header definition from the RFC, you can see that the LE is correct (valid translation from BE, the *new* BE in this patch).

Sigh, I see it now. Thanks!
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
index 1dccb55cf8c6..708adddf9f13 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/rpl.h
@@ -28,10 +28,10 @@  struct ipv6_rpl_sr_hdr {
 		pad:4,
 		reserved1:16;
 #elif defined(__BIG_ENDIAN_BITFIELD)
-	__u32	reserved:20,
+	__u32	cmpri:4,
+		cmpre:4,
 		pad:4,
-		cmpri:4,
-		cmpre:4;
+		reserved:20;
 #else
 #error  "Please fix <asm/byteorder.h>"
 #endif