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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:58:42 +0800 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE vs NETIF_F_GSO On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:31:59AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > So far implementing (3) is failing miserably. Is there anything wrong > with my general idea that might make this a priori impossible? For > example, will udp_tunnel_xmit_skb not accept super-packets? Or, am I > just not making use of whatever nice convenience functions are > available for constructing super-packets, and thus am doing something > wrong? I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with your idea. After all what you're describing is the basis of GSO, i.e., letting data stay in the form of super-packets for as long as we can. Of course there's going to be a lot of niggly bits that you'll have to sort out to get it to work. Good luck, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists