linux-kernel - Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:26:56 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, openib-general@...nib.org,
	Roland Dreier <rolandd@...co.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

Quoting r. Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>:
> Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.
> 
>     Michael> Maybe I can patch linux to allow SG without checksum?
>     Michael> Dave, maybe you could drop a hint or two on whether this
>     Michael> is worthwhile and what are the issues that need
>     Michael> addressing to make this work?
> 
> What do you really gain by allowing SG without checksum?  Someone has
> to do the checksum anyway, so I don't see that much difference between
> doing it in the networking core before passing the data to/from the
> driver, or down in the driver itself.

My guess was, an extra pass over data is likely to be expensive - dirtying the
cache if nothing else. But I do plan to measure that, and see.

-- 
MST
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/