netdev - NETIF_F_TSO vs NETIF_F_TSO{6,

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:50:02 +0100
From:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To:	Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: NETIF_F_TSO vs NETIF_F_TSO{6,_ECN}

According to the commit that introduced NETIF_F_TSO6
(f83ef8c0b58dac17211a4c0b6df0e2b1bd6637b1):
    
        This patch will introduce a new flag NETIF_F_TSO6 which will be used
        to check whether device supports TSO over IPv6. If device support TSO
        over IPv6 then we don't clear of NETIF_F_TSO and which will make the
        TCP layer to create TSO packets. Any device supporting TSO over IPv6
        will set NETIF_F_TSO6 flag in "dev->features" along with NETIF_F_TSO.
    
        In case when user disables TSO using ethtool, NETIF_F_TSO will get
        cleared from "dev->features". So even if we have NETIF_F_TSO6 we don't
        get TSO packets created by TCP layer.

So I think we need to either:
1. Disallow toggling NETIF_F_TSO6 (following the previous rule)
2. Disable NETIF_F_TSO6 when NETIF_F_TSO is disabled

The same presumably applies to NETIF_F_TSO_ECN.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.

--
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