netdev - RE: [PATCH net] gso: do GSO for local skb with size bigger than MTU

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:	Wed, 3 Dec 2014 06:53:08 +0000
From:	"Du, Fan" <fan.du@...el.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"fw@...len.de" <fw@...len.de>, "Du, Fan" <fan.du@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] gso: do GSO for local skb with size bigger than MTU



>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 3, 2014 1:15 PM
>To: Du, Fan
>Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; fw@...len.de
>Subject: Re: [PATCH net] gso: do GSO for local skb with size bigger than MTU
>
>From: "Du, Fan" <fan.du@...el.com>
>Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 04:50:21 +0000
>
>> Do you have any better idea to achieve what you said besides this
>> patch approach without both fragmentation and ICMP message at the same
>> time to cater for all kinds tunnel tech?
>
>I am not obligated to figure out for you how to design a correctly implemented
>patch.
>
>But I am obligated to keep a bad change from going into the tree and that is what I
>am doing.

"bad" is not depending whether you say it or not, but what the real world needs and what
proper solution could be provided at the time being.



--
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