[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49345CCA.1030209@myri.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:53:14 -0500
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: ossthema@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tklein@...ibm.com, raisch@...ibm.com,
jb.billaud@...il.com, hering2@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lro: IP fragment checking
David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@...i.com>
> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:50:15 -0500
>
>> As to whether or not to do it in the drivers/hardware or in the
>> LRO code, I favor doing it in the LRO code just so that it is not
>> missed in some driver.
>
> Then there is no point in the hardware doing the check, if
> we're going to check it anyways.
>
> That's part of my point about why this check doesn't belong
> here.
What hardware does an explicit check for fragmentation?
In most cases, aren't we just relying on the hardware checksum
to be wrong on fragmented packets? That works 99.999% of the time,
but the TCP checksum is pretty weak, and it is possible to
have a fragmented packet where the first fragment has the same
checksum as the entire packet.
I'd rather have a fragmentation check at the LRO layer to remove
any ambiguity. But if you still object, I'll at least have to
submit a patch which adds an explicit check in myri10ge.
Drew
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists