netdev - Question about supporting non-IP offloads (FCoE)

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:	Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:55:26 -0700
From:	Chris Leech <christopher.leech@...el.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Question about supporting non-IP offloads (FCoE)

I'm looking at adding support for stateless offloads to the Fibre
Channel over Ethernet stack at open-fcoe.org that roughly match
currently supported TCP offloads:  Fibre Channel CRC offload on Tx and
Rx, and sequencing offload (GSO) on Tx.

>From the net_device all I see the need for is two feature flags bits for
the transmit path, one for FC-CRC and one for FCoE GSO.

In the skb, the FCoE needs match up well with the existing CRC and GSO
fields.  I would like to reuse the ip_summed bits rather than add to the
skb, but I suspect this will be the most controversial part of the FCoE
offloads.

Are there any objections to the idea of adding checks for FCoE protocol
to the dev_queue_xmit/dev_can_checksum/can_checksum_protocol path?
Obviously skb_checksum_help isn't going to work as a software fallback
and a protocol check would need to be added there as well, or a
per-protocol helper like is done for gso_segment.

- Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html