linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 06/14] ipvlan: Support GSO for port -> ipvlan

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: <CANn89iKioXqA3vdKdpL9iZYVU0qOPGCKxYiStc=WNWQ3+ARP_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2025 07:56:26 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Dmitry Skorodumov <skorodumov.dmitry@...wei.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	andrey.bokhanko@...wei.com, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 06/14] ipvlan: Support GSO for port -> ipvlan

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 7:41 AM Dmitry Skorodumov
<skorodumov.dmitry@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 05.11.2025 19:58, Dmitry Skorodumov wrote:
> > On 05.11.2025 19:29, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 8:15 AM Dmitry Skorodumov
> >> <skorodumov.dmitry@...wei.com> wrote:
> >>> If main port interface supports GSO, we need manually segment
> >>> the skb before forwarding it to ipvlan interface.
> >> Why ?
>
> Hm, really, this patch is not needed at all. tap_handle_frame() already does everything needed. Looks like I had another trouble and this patch was an attempt to fix it.
>
> >> Also I do not see any tests, for the whole series ?
> > Ok, If modules like this have some kind of unit-tests, I should study it and provide it. I haven't seen this as a common practice for most of the modules here. So far all testing is made manually (likely this should be described anyway)
>
> I see that currently there is no any tests for this ipvlan module (may be I missed something).. Do you have any ideas about tests? I'm a bit  confused at the moment: designing tests from scratch - this might be a bit tricky.
>
> Or it is enough just describe test-cases I checked manually (in some of the patches of the series)?

I have some hard time to figure out why you are changing ipvlan, with
some features that seem quite unrelated.

ipvlan is heavily used by Google, I am quite reluctant to see a huge
chunk of changes that I do not understand, without spending hours on
it.

The MAC-NAT keyword seems more related to a bridge.