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]

Message-ID: <adafydvbjgq.fsf@cisco.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:49:09 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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.

    David> non-sendfile() paths will generate big packets just fine,
    David> as long as the application is providing that much data.

OK, cool.  Will the big packets be non-linear skbs?

Because then it would make sense for a device with a huge MTU to want
to accept them without linearizing them, even if it had to copy them
to checksum the data.  Otherwise with fragmented memory it would be
impossible to handle such big packets at all.

 - R.
-
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/