netdev - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator

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: <48A390F4.5080101@opengridcomputing.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:57:08 -0500
From:	Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	rdreier@...co.com, rick.jones2@...com, jgarzik@...ox.com,
	swise@...ngridcomputing.com, divy@...lsio.com, kxie@...lsio.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, open-iscsi@...glegroups.com,
	michaelc@...wisc.edu, daisyc@...ibm.com, wenxiong@...ibm.com,
	bhua@...ibm.com, dm@...lsio.com, leedom@...lsio.com,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/1] cxgb3i: cxgb3 iSCSI initiator

David Miller wrote:
> From: Tom Tucker <tom@...ngridcomputing.com>
> Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:26:51 -0500
>
>   
>> Can you explain how this "information" somehow doesn't qualify as 
>> "state". Doesn't the next expected sequence number at the very least 
>> need to be updated? una? etc...?
>>
>> Could you also include the "non-state-full" information necessary to do 
>> iSCSI header digest validation, data placement, and marker removal? 
>>     
>
> It's stateless because the full packet traverses the real networking
> stack and thus can be treated like any other packet.
>
> The data placement is a side effect that the networking stack can
> completely ignore if it chooses to.
> --
> 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
>   
Ok. Maybe we're getting somewhere here ... or at least I am :-)

I'm not trying to be pedantic here but let me try and restate what I 
think you said above:

- The "header" traverses the real networking stack
- The "payload" is placed either by by the hardware if possible or by 
the native stack if on the exception path
- The "header" may aggregate multiple  PDU (RSO)
- Data ready indications are controlled entirely by the software/real 
networking stack

Thanks,
Tom

--
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