netdev - Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking

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: <20100501.150338.93457735.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sat, 01 May 2010 15:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	andi@...stfloor.org
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, shemminger@...tta.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking

From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 12:53:04 +0200

>> And we don't want it to, because the decision mechanisms for steering
>> that we using now are starting to get into the stateful territory and
>> that's verbotton for NIC offload as far as we're concerned.
> 
> Huh? I thought full TCP offload was forbidden?[1] Statefull as in NIC 
> (or someone else like netfilter) tracking flows is quite common and very far 
> from full offload. AFAIK it doesn't have near all the problems full
> offload has.

We're tracking flow cpu location state at the socket operations, like
recvmsg() and sendmsg(), where it belongs.

Would you like us to call into the card drivers and firmware at these
spots instead?
--
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