netdev - Re: [RFC v2] ipvs: allow transmit of GRO aggregated skbs

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, 8 Nov 2010 16:31:51 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc:	lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] ipvs: allow transmit of GRO aggregated skbs

[ CCing Herbet Xu ]

On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 11:28:21PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > 
> > 	Hello,
> > 
> > On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Simon Horman wrote:
> > 
> > >This is a first attempt at allowing LVS to transmit
> > >skbs of greater than MTU length that have been aggregated by GRO.
> > >
> > >I have lightly tested the ip_vs_dr_xmit() portion of this patch and
> > >although it seems to work I am unsure that netif_needs_gso() is the correct
> > >test to use.
> > 
> > 	ip_forward() uses !skb_is_gso(skb), so may be it is
> > enough to check for GRO instead of using netif_needs_gso?
> 
> Thanks, I'll look into that.

Hi Julian,

just to clarify, you think that !skb_is_gso(skb) should be
used in ip_vs_xmit.c? If so, yes I think that makes sense
and I'll re-spin my patch accordingly.
--
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