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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 10:41:15 -0800 From: Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com> To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, sathya.perla@...lex.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, linux.nics@...el.com, amirv@...lanox.com, shahed.shaikh@...gic.com, Dept-GELinuxNICDev@...gic.com, therbert@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 3/5] fm10k: Implement ndo_gso_check() On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 06:54:00PM -0800, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On 11/04/2014 01:56 PM, Joe Stringer wrote: > > ndo_gso_check() was recently introduced to allow NICs to report the > > offloading support that they have on a per-skb basis. Add an > > implementation for this driver which checks for something that looks > > like VXLAN. > > > > Implementation shamelessly stolen from Tom Herbert: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/332428/focus=333111 > > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joestringer@...ira.com> > > --- > > Should this driver report support for GSO on packets with tunnel headers > > up to 64B like the i40e driver does? > > --- > > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_netdev.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_netdev.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_netdev.c > > index 8811364..b9ef622 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_netdev.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/fm10k/fm10k_netdev.c > > @@ -1350,6 +1350,17 @@ static void fm10k_dfwd_del_station(struct net_device *dev, void *priv) > > } > > } > > > > +static bool fm10k_gso_check(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev) > > +{ > > + if ((skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL) && > > + (skb->inner_protocol_type != ENCAP_TYPE_ETHER || > > + skb->inner_protocol != htons(ETH_P_TEB) || > > + skb_inner_mac_header(skb) - skb_transport_header(skb) != 16)) > > + return false; > > + > > + return true; > > +} > > + > > static const struct net_device_ops fm10k_netdev_ops = { > > .ndo_open = fm10k_open, > > .ndo_stop = fm10k_close, > > @@ -1372,6 +1383,7 @@ static const struct net_device_ops fm10k_netdev_ops = { > > .ndo_do_ioctl = fm10k_ioctl, > > .ndo_dfwd_add_station = fm10k_dfwd_add_station, > > .ndo_dfwd_del_station = fm10k_dfwd_del_station, > > + .ndo_gso_check = fm10k_gso_check, > > }; > > > > #define DEFAULT_DEBUG_LEVEL_SHIFT 3 > > I'm thinking this check is far too simplistic. If you look the fm10k > driver already has fm10k_tx_encap_offload() in the TSO function for > verifying if it can support offloading tunnels or not. I would > recommend starting there or possibly even just adapting that function to > suit your purpose. > > Thanks, > > Alex Would it be enough to just call fm10k_tx_encap_offload() in a way that echoes fm10k_tso()? +static bool fm10k_gso_check(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev) +{ + if (skb->encapsulation && !fm10k_tx_encap_offload(skb)) + return false; + + return true; +} Thanks, Joe -- 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