netdev - Re: Translation table available between 'ethtool -k' and 'ethtool -K' ? For Linux?

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:	Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:36:16 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>, Spike_White@...l.com,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Translation table available between 'ethtool -k' and 'ethtool -K'
 ? For Linux?

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:07:44 -0800
>
>> Ben I'm not sure I see this. If we turn off HW offloads and rely on
>> the software offloads where is the increased risk? This may result in
>> performance degradation for sure, but I really hope at this point that
>> the software offload mechanisms in the stack are as least as robust as
>> any HW mechanism.
>
> It means you're testing a configuration different from %99 of users
> (who are not changing the defaults).  You are by definition testing
> code paths with less overall global testing coverage.

Remarkably, this is the second time this week I've heard of a user
unilaterally turning off LRO/TSO in their network because of perceived
issues. I wonder if this is happening more often then we might hope...
--
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