netdev - Re: Bug#565404: linux-image-2.6.26-2-amd64: atl1e: TSO is broken

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Apr 2013 02:43:58 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	"Huang, Xiong" <xiong@....qualcomm.com>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Anders Boström <anders@...insight.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"565404@...s.debian.org" <565404@...s.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#565404: linux-image-2.6.26-2-amd64: atl1e: TSO is broken

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 12:12:12AM +0000, Huang, Xiong wrote:
> > > Hannes,  Thanks for your testing !
> > >
> > >  simply revising MAX_TX_BUF_LEN to 0x4000 will cause incorrect TX
> > configuration...
> > > I mean you can try to put a gso size limit of 0x4000 (or 0x5000)....
> > 
> > I tested both values with multi-gigabyte nfsv4 traffic and both values are ok.
> > If I understand you correctly 0x4000 is a safe limit?
> 
> Since Win7 driver uses 15000 bytes as its max packet length for TSO, I think 0x3C00 is more safer than 0x4000. :)

Thanks again for helping to resolve this issue. I just submitted a patch
but accidently killed the cc-line.

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
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