netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] i40e/i40evf: Add support for GSO partial with UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM and GRE

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, 23 Mar 2016 13:21:46 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
Cc:	Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] i40e/i40evf: Add support for GSO partial with
 UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM and GRE_CSUM

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:35 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c
>> index 39b0009253c2..ac3964a9f5c0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c
>> @@ -9074,7 +9075,12 @@ static int i40e_config_netdev(struct i40e_vsi *vsi)
>>         if (!(pf->flags & I40E_FLAG_MFP_ENABLED))
>>                 netdev->features |= NETIF_F_NTUPLE;
>>         if (pf->flags & I40E_FLAG_OUTER_UDP_CSUM_CAPABLE)
>> -               netdev->features |= NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM;
>> +               netdev->features = NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM;
>
> Looks like there might be a typo - I guess this is supposed to still
> OR with the previous features instead of replacing them?

Yes, that was a typo.  It looks like I got it right on the i40vf half
of the patch but didn't get it correct here.

Thanks for catching that, I'll have it fixed for when I push it for net-next.

- Alex