netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC] tun: export underlying socket

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:	Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:02:35 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...taire.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] tun: export underlying socket

Herbert Xu wrote:
> TSO is not a problem because we provide a software fallback when
> the hardware does not support it.  So guests should always enable
> TSO if they support it and not worry about the physical NIC.

Yes, I am aware that GSO can take action and so software segmentation is / can be done when the HW isn't capable of doing so (and I assume the same can go for checksum). I assume that by "we provide" you mean the core networking code, correct? in what level? I assume its not the TCP one, since this is not applicable a tun/bridge scheme. Simper example would be the vm nic MTU... with vhost attached directly to a nic with packet socket you can learn/control it all, where when tun/bridge is used, how can you tell?

Or.
--
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