netdev - Re: [PATCH 5/7] xen-netfront: reduce gso_max_size to account for ethernet 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 12 Apr 2013 05:58:19 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>,
	"wdauchy@...il.com" <wdauchy@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xen-netfront: reduce gso_max_size to account for
 ethernet header

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 10:43 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 10:34 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:

> > But we don't have handle on this. If I understand correctly the
> > discussion in other thread, 90 is empirical value, not something
> > documented.
> 
> My original question was effectively "is anyone else going to be
> interested in this empirical value", if so then it seems like it would
> be useful to have it centrally defined.
> 

This could be MAX_TCP_HEADER. Probably a bit overestimated but do we
care ?



--
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