[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314829651.9556.37.camel@HP1>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:27:31 -0700
From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>
To: "Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...tta.com>
cc: "David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RFC - should network devices trim frames > soft mtu
On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 15:18 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I noticed the following in the bnx2 driver.
>
>
> static int
> bnx2_rx_int(struct bnx2 *bp, struct bnx2_napi *bnapi, int budget)
> {
> ...
> skb->protocol = eth_type_trans(skb, bp->dev);
>
> if ((len > (bp->dev->mtu + ETH_HLEN)) &&
> (ntohs(skb->protocol) != 0x8100)) {
>
> dev_kfree_skb(skb);
> goto next_rx;
>
> }
>
> This means that for non-VLAN tagged frames, the device drops received
> packets if the length is greater than the MTU. I don't see that in
> other devices. What is the correct method? IMHO the bnx2 driver is
> wrong here and if the policy is desired it should be enforced at
> the next level (netif_receive_skb). Hardcoding a protocol value is
> kind of a giveaway that something is fishy.
>
I guess the reasoning is that we program the RX MTU in our chip to
automatically discard packets bigger than the RX MTU and count them as
over-size packets. We add 4 bytes to the RX MTU to account for the VLAN
tag which may be stripped or not stripped by the chip depending on
settings. The extra 4 bytes in the RX MTU setting will allow over-size
packets by up to 4 bytes to get through.
I agree we should move this to the next level.
--
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