netdev - Re: [PATCH] mac80211: rewrite fragmentation code

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: <20080516032832.GA6745@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Fri, 16 May 2008 11:28:32 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mb@...sch.de,
	johannes@...solutions.net, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, ron.rindjunsky@...el.com, tomasw@...il.com,
	ivdoorn@...il.com, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: rewrite fragmentation code

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:01:48PM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> Dave, please allow me to ask a heretical question.  Returning TX_BUSY has some 
> appeal for virtio_net: is it fundamentally a flawed idea, or simply a matter 
> of coding?

I don't think returning TX_BUSY is fundamentally flawed (unlike
LLTX which is).  However, until somebody (i.e., you :) writes
the code to handle it properly, i.e., not making the requeued
packet go through AF_PCAKET twice, it's something that shouldn't
be encouraged.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <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 netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html