linux-kernel - Re: NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE vs NETIF_F

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: <20151106045842.GB14722@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 6 Nov 2015 12:58:42 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE vs NETIF_F_GSO

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:31:59AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> 
> So far implementing (3) is failing miserably. Is there anything wrong
> with my general idea that might make this a priori impossible? For
> example, will udp_tunnel_xmit_skb not accept super-packets? Or, am I
> just not making use of whatever nice convenience functions are
> available for constructing super-packets, and thus am doing something
> wrong?

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with your idea.  After
all what you're describing is the basis of GSO, i.e., letting
data stay in the form of super-packets for as long as we can.

Of course there's going to be a lot of niggly bits that you'll
have to sort out to get it to work.

Good luck,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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/