netdev - Re: [RFC v2] mac80211: assign needed

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:	Mon, 05 May 2008 19:57:34 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Tomas Winkler <tomasw@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linville@...driver.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] mac80211: assign needed_headroom/tailroom for netdevs


> I would set  NETIF_F_SG OR FRAGLIS to features...?  (What actually is
> the difference?)

Do you support TCP checksumming in hardware? -> no SG

NETIF_F_FRAGLIST I haven't understood, but it seems to apply mostly for
IP fragmentation?

> but even when it does I
> >  don't see what we can do unless we want to do all this inside mac80211
> >  which I'd rather not.
> 
> Like Sending mac80211 header OOB as xmit function argument?  This will
> probably affect all the wme code as well...
> Not good.

Yep.

> Isn't this a requirement that header fits into a continuous buffer ?

which header? The SKB header (skb->data .. skb->tail
(skb->head..skb->end)) or the 802.11/device header?

> It's sounds strange to me that there is no solution for efficient
> bridging... Can bridging code handle this if we have native interface?

I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)