netdev - Re: crash with bridge and inconsistent handling of NETDEV_TX

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, 20 Apr 2010 20:23:57 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: crash with bridge and inconsistent handling of NETDEV_TX_OK

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, David Miller wrote:

> From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:12:45 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> > Why is it using GSO on bridging?
> 
> Unlike LRO, GRO and GSO are completely valid in bridging and
> routing situations.
> 
> In fact, in virtualization environments it is essential for
> good performance.

I know it may be used for bridging. But it doesn't explain how it happened 
in my case.

I have two NICs, each with 1500 MTU. The stack trace indicates that a 
packet was received by one NIC and bridged to the other. The stack trace 
also indicates that it went through GSO code path. The question is why? 
How could a forwarded packet be so large to use GSO?

Mikulas
--
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