linux-kernel - Re: [linux-nics] [PATCH net 3/5] fm10k: Implement ndo_gso

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:51:32 +1300
From:	Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com>
To:	"Vick, Matthew" <matthew.vick@...el.com>
Cc:	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Linux NICS <Linux-nics@...tope.jf.intel.com>,
	"shahed.shaikh" <shahed.shaikh@...gic.com>,
	"sathya.perla" <sathya.perla@...lex.com>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vadai <amirv@...lanox.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	"dept-gelinuxnicdev" <Dept-GELinuxNICDev@...gic.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
	"Amir@...tope.jf.intel.com" <Amir@...tope.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-nics] [PATCH net 3/5] fm10k: Implement ndo_gso_check()

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 14:20:08 Vick, Matthew wrote:
> On 11/6/14, 4:55 PM, "Joe Stringer" <joestringer@...ira.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:58:32PM +0000, Vick, Matthew wrote:
> >> On 11/5/14, 11:36 AM, "Jeff Kirsher" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
> >>
> >>wrote:
> >> Hi Joe, fm10k's hardware is pretty lax about the header size. As long as
> >> the total header length (outer+inner) is 184 bytes or less we're golden,
> >> so if I'm not mistaken that leaves us with a max of 130 bytes beyond the
> >> tunnel header.
> >
> >Oh, okay. To be more explicit, in the case of UDP tunnels I take it that
> >you're talking about L2+L3+(L4+)tunnel+L2+L3+L4 <= 184? (L4 perhaps
> >optional depending on the tunnel protocol used)
> >
> >In that case, the fm10k_gso_check would use something closer to
> >"skb_inner_transport_header(skb) - skb_mac_header(skb) > 184", or
> >perhaps 164 to allow for inner L4 header (?).
> >
> >Joe
> 
> Yes, I'm talking about the full shebang.
> 
> I like the 164 check, personally (with appropriate #define for
> readability).

Thanks for the feedback, I take it that this approach is preferable over the 
other one involving an skb_gso_check() + fm10k_tx_encap_offload() call?
--
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/