netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] ipv4: gre: add GRO capability

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]

Date:	Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:56:14 -0700
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] ipv4: gre: add GRO capability

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 15:03 -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
>
>> We wouldn't actually do the decapsulation at the point of GRO.  This
>> is actually pretty similar to what we do with TCP - we merge TCP
>> payloads even though we haven't done any real IP processing yet.
>> However, we do check firewall rules later if we actually hit the IP
>> stack.  GRE would work the same way in this case.
>>
>> What I'm describing is pretty much exactly what NICs will be doing, so
>> if that doesn't work we'll have a problem...
>
> GRO ability to truly aggregate data is kind of limited to some
> workloads. How NICs will handle interleaved flows I dont really know.
>
> What you describe needs a serious GRO preliminary work, because it
> depends on napi_gro_flush() being called from time to time, while we
> need something else, more fine grained.
>
> (I am pretty sure GRO needs some love from us, it looks like some
> packets can stay a long time in gro_list. It would be nice if it was
> able to reorder packets (from same flow) as well)

It's definitely possible to improve GRO in a couple of areas.  I'm not
quite sure why you say that these changes are related to tunnels
though, since they're not really different from say, a VLAN tag.

> Anyway, my changes are self-contained in a new file and non intrusive.
>
> As soon as we can provide a better alternative we can revert them ?

Sure, I don't have a problem with your patches for now.  I was just
trying to think about different approaches.
--
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