netdev - Re: [PATCH net] amd-xgbe: Fix jumbo MTU processing on newer hardware

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, 15 Mar 2017 17:52:44 -0500
From:   Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:     <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] amd-xgbe: Fix jumbo MTU processing on newer hardware

On 3/15/2017 5:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:40:51 -0500
>
>> On 3/15/2017 5:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>>> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:11:23 -0500
>>>
>>>> Newer hardware does not provide a cumulative payload length when
>>>> multiple
>>>> descriptors are needed to handle the data. Once the MTU increases
>>>> beyond
>>>> the size that can be handled by a single descriptor, the SKB does not
>>>> get
>>>> built properly by the driver.
>>>>
>>>> The driver will now calculate the size of the data buffers used by the
>>>> hardware.  The first buffer of the first descriptor is for packet
>>>> headers
>>>> or packet headers and data when the headers can't be split. Subsequent
>>>> descriptors in a multi-descriptor chain will not use the first
>>>> buffer. The
>>>> second buffer is used by all the descriptors in the chain for payload
>>>> data.
>>>> Based on whether the driver is processing the first, intermediate, or
>>>> last
>>>> descriptor it can calculate the buffer usage and build the SKB
>>>> properly.
>>>>
>>>> Tested and verified on both old and new hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
>>>
>>> Applied, thanks Tom.
>>
>> Thanks David.  This is another patch for 4.10 stable. Can you please
>> queue it up?
>
> Can you properly state this in your patch postings, instead of always
> mentioning it later?
>

Sorry, yes, I can do that.  I didn't realize you preferred it that way.
Do you want the "Cc" tag to stable included in the patch or just
mention the stable targets in the patch description?  I know you
coordinate the stable submissions and I don't want to mess anything up.

Thanks,
Tom


> Thank you.
>