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:   Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:26:24 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <>
To:     Alexander Lobakin <>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <>,
        "David S. Miller" <>,
        Jakub Kicinski <>,
        Steffen Klassert <>,
        Antoine Tenart <>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <>,
        Miaohe Lin <>,
        Network Development <>,
        linux-kernel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: avoid unneeded UDP L4 and fraglist GSO resegmentation

> >> I think it is fine to reenable this again, now that UDP sockets will
> >> segment unexpected UDP GSO packets that may have looped. We previously
> >> added general software support in commit 83aa025f535f ("udp: add gso
> >> support to virtual devices"). Then reduced its scope to egress only in
> >> 8eea1ca82be9 ("gso: limit udp gso to egress-only virtual devices") to
> >> handle that edge case.
> Regarding bonding and teaming: I think they should also use
> NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE mask, not NETIF_F_ALL_TSO, as SCTP also has
> a software fallback. This way we could also remove a separate
> advertising of NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4, as it will be included in the first.
> So, if this one:
> 2. Change bonding and teaming features mask from NETIF_F_ALL_TSO |
> 3. Check that every virtual netdev has NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE _or_
>    NETIF_F_GSO_MASK in its advertising.
> is fine for everyone, I'll publish more appropriate and polished v2 soon.

I think we can revert 8eea1ca82be9. Except for the part where it
defines the feature in NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL instead of
NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE. That appears to have been a peculiar choice. I
can't recall exactly why I chose that. Most likely because that was
(at the time) the only macro that covered all the devices I wanted to

As for SCTP: that has the same concern that prompted that commit for
UDP: is it safe to forward those packets to the ingress path today?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists