netdev - Re: WARNING (skb_gso_segment) with tg3+bridge in 2.6.27

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:13:25 -0700
From:	"Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>
To:	"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
cc:	"Matthew Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"berni@...kenwald.de" <berni@...kenwald.de>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING (skb_gso_segment) with tg3+bridge in 2.6.27


On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 19:20 -0700, Herbert Xu wrote:
> What I meant is the NETIF_F_TSO6 bit vs. NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM bit.
> My question is essentially does having the first bit always mean
> that the second bit is set.  The second bit stands for support
> of TCPv6 and UDPv6 checksum offload (which is not necessarily
> related to TSO or UFO).
> 
> The thing which I wasn't sure about is that the conditions which
> determine which one of these bits are set do not look the same
> in tg3.
> 

Yes, NETIF_F_TSO6 chips are a subset of NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM chips.  In the
code, these 2 bits are set independently and so the relationship is not
obvious.  We should probably rearrange the code to make things more
clear.

Thanks.


--
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