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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:10:04 -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 20:23:57 -0400 (EDT) > > > 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? > > GRO automatically accumulates packets together, accumulating them into > larger super-packets. This is done regardless of input device feeding > it. > > Can you understand this now? In software, we accumulate all incoming > packets for a TCP stream into larger super-packets. Just because it's > a bridging scenerio doesn't mean we disable GRO. > > These super-packets are being bridged, then forwarded out your > destination device and GSO has to de-segment these GRO frames. > > GRO is done unconditionally, all the time, for all packets. I see, but GRO is turned off on my interfaces, according to ethtool. 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