netdev - RE: [PATCH] Disable TSO for non standard qdiscs

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: <D5C1322C3E673F459512FB59E0DDC32904700F27@orsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:39:55 -0800
From:	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To:	"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	"Patrick McHardy" <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Disable TSO for non standard qdiscs

> The philosophical problem I have with this suggestion is that 
> I expect that the large majority of users will be more happy 
> with disabled TSO if they use non standard qdiscs and 
> defaults that do not fit the majority use case are bad.
> 
> Basically you're suggesting that nearly everyone using tc 
> should learn about another obscure command.

If someone is using tc to load and configure a qdisc, I'd really hope
knowing or learning ethtool wouldn't be a stretch for them...  And I'm
not arguing the majority of people will want this or not, but taking
away the ability to use TSO at the kernel level here without allowing a
tuneable is making that decision for them, which is wrong IMO.

Cheers,

-PJ Waskiewicz
<peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html