linux-kernel - Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

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:	Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	rdreier@...co.com
Cc:	mst@...lanox.co.il, shemminger@...l.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	openib-general@...nib.org, rolandd@...co.com
Subject: Re: Dropping NETIF_F_SG since no checksum feature.

From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:33:46 -0700

>     Michael> My guess was, an extra pass over data is likely to be
>     Michael> expensive - dirtying the cache if nothing else. But I do
>     Michael> plan to measure that, and see.
> 
> I don't get it -- where's the extra pass?  If you can't compute the
> checksum on the NIC then you have to compute sometime it on the CPU
> before passing the data to the NIC.

Also, if you don't do checksumming on the card we MUST copy
the data (be it from a user buffer, or from a filesystem page
cache page) into a private buffer since if the data changes
the checksum would become invalid, as I mentioned in another
email earlier.

Therefore, since we have to copy anyways, it always is better
to checksum in parallel with the copy.

So the whole idea of SG without hw-checksum support is without
much merit at all.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/