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: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1004202018100.16302@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:23:57 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: crash with bridge and inconsistent handling of NETDEV_TX_OK



On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, David Miller wrote:

> From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 20:12:45 -0400 (EDT)
> 
> > Why is it using GSO on bridging?
> 
> Unlike LRO, GRO and GSO are completely valid in bridging and
> routing situations.
> 
> In fact, in virtualization environments it is essential for
> good performance.

I know it may be used for bridging. But it doesn't explain how it happened 
in my case.

I have two NICs, each with 1500 MTU. The stack trace indicates that a 
packet was received by one NIC and bridged to the other. The stack trace 
also indicates that it went through GSO code path. The question is why? 
How could a forwarded packet be so large to use GSO?

Mikulas
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ