netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next V2] gro: introduce gro_mac_header

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:	Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:12:23 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	roland@...nel.org
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	sean.hefty@...el.com, herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, shlomop@...lanox.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V2] gro: introduce gro_mac_header_len

From: Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:23:58 -0800

> IMHO the problem is in the IPoIB RFC: (4391) which makes
> a distinction between an "encapsulation header" and the "link
> layer address".  The LL address is what we put into ARP and
> ND packets, and so I think we are forced into exposing that
> to the network stack as our hardware address.

An address is not a hardware MAC header, we're only talking
about the length of the latter.

If the addressing is such that you need to put the GID
into the ARP/NDISC packets, and that's different from what
ends up in the final encapsulation header, I really don't
see what the problem is specificially with respect to the
MAC header size.
--
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