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  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]
Date:	Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:00:18 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
From:	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <>
To:	Herbert Xu <>
cc:	Ben Hutchings <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] ethtool: Add GGRO and SGRO ops

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008, Herbert Xu wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:36:14AM -0800, Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
> >
> > I'm confused then.  You're adding two ethtool entry points with
> > ETHTOOL_GGRO and ETHTOOL_SGRO, adding the callpoints in dev_ethtool with
> > set_gro and get_gro, but how do you manipulate this without adding to the
> > userspace application?  Adding this functionality to the set/get_flags
> > will keep the userspace app from needing a patch to support the new
> > callbacks.
> Huh? Whether you use get_flags or not you still need to patch the
> user-space application so that it knows how to handle
>         ethtool -K eth0 gro on/off
> There is no way around that.
> As I said earlier, I didn't use get_flags/set_flags because of the
> need to depend on RX checksum offload.

Ok, that makes sense.  

> BTW, here is the patch for ethtool to set the GRO flags.

Thanks Herbert.  I was slightly confused when you said you wouldn't need 
to affect the ethtool_ops struct, which you don't.  But my initial read 
didn't think to just pop it into the existing offload ethtool_ops entry 
point after seeing the get/set ops you had in the kernel interface.  I've 
been enlightened now (or my brain has finally slipped into gear).  :-)

> -static int dump_offload(int rx, int tx, int sg, int tso, int ufo, int gso, int lro)
> +static int dump_offload(int rx, int tx, int sg, int tso, int ufo, int gso,
> +                       int gro, int lro)

Would it make better sense to add GRO after LRO?  I suppose it doesn't 
make any difference, but I'm thinking of any possible way to provide ABI 
compatibility.  I don't think it's possible though; just thinking out loud 

-PJ Waskiewicz
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists