netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] qed/qede: Tunnel hardware GRO support

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, 22 Jun 2016 16:31:32 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>,
	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>,
	Manish Chopra <manish.chopra@...gic.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] qed/qede: Tunnel hardware GRO support

On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 15:56 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:

> It could be that you and Rick are running different firmware. I
> believe you can expose that via "ethtool -i".  This is the ugly bit
> about all this.  We are offloading GRO into the firmware of these
> devices with no idea how any of it works and by linking GRO to LRO on
> the same device you are stuck having to accept either the firmware
> offload or nothing at all.  That is kind of the point Rick was trying
> to get at.


Well, we offload TSO to the NIC. Or checksums as much as we can.

At one point we have to trust the NIC we plug in our hosts, right ?

Why RX is so different than TX exactly ?

Yes, LRO is hard to implement properly compared to TSO,
but not something that is _fundamentally_ broken.

Claiming that hardware assist GRO is not possible is a plain mantra.