[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49347B0B.8030705@myri.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:02:19 -0500
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ossthema@...ibm.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tklein@...ibm.com, raisch@...ibm.com, jb.billaud@...il.com,
hering2@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lro: IP fragment checking
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:53 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:50:15 -0500
>>>
>>>> As to whether or not to do it in the drivers/hardware or in the
>>>> LRO code, I favor doing it in the LRO code just so that it is not
>>>> missed in some driver.
>>> Then there is no point in the hardware doing the check, if
>>> we're going to check it anyways.
>>>
>>> That's part of my point about why this check doesn't belong
>>> here.
>> What hardware does an explicit check for fragmentation?
>
> Any that implements TCP/UDP checksumming properly.
How many do?
>> In most cases, aren't we just relying on the hardware checksum
>> to be wrong on fragmented packets? That works 99.999% of the time,
>> but the TCP checksum is pretty weak, and it is possible to
>> have a fragmented packet where the first fragment has the same
>> checksum as the entire packet.
> [...]
>
> If your hardware/firmware wrongly claims to be able to verify the
> TCP/UDP checksum for an IP fragment, it seems to me you should deal with
> that in your driver or fix the firmware.
We do partial checksums.
Drew
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists