netdev - [RFC] IP_MAX

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:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:47:48 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Subject: [RFC] IP_MAX_MTU value

Hi David

We have the following definition in net/ipv4/route.c

#define IP_MAX_MTU   0xFFF0

This means that "netperf -t UDP_STREAM", using UDP messages of 65507
bytes, are fragmented on loopback interface (while its MTU is now 65536
and should allow those UDP messages being sent without fragments)

I guess Rick chose 65507 bytes in netperf because it was related to the
max IPv4 datagram length :

65507 + 28 = 65535

Changing IP_MAX_MTU from 0xFFF0 to 0x10000 seems safe [1], but I might
miss something really obvious ?

It might be because in old days we reserved 16 bytes for the ethernet
header, and we wanted to avoid kmalloc() round-up to kmalloc-131072
slab ?

If so, we certainly can limit skb->head to 32 or 64 KB and complete with
page fragments the remaining space.

Thanks

[1] performance increase is ~50% 

--
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