[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130318092444.GG7938@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:24:44 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Netfilter Developer Mailing List
<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: nfnetlink_queue: zero copy support
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> nfqnl_build_packet_message() actually copy the packet
> inside the netlink message, while it can instead use
> zero copy.
>
> Make sure the skb 'copy' is the last component of the
> cooked netlink message, as we cant add anything after it.
>
> Patch cooked in Copenhagen at Netfilter Workshop ;)
This is awesome.
Was there a consensus wrt. mmap'd netlink vs. your patch?
[ I ask because both get rid of one skb data copy ]
> Still to be addressed in separate patches :
>
> -GRO/GSO packets are segmented in nf_queue()
> and checksummed in nfqnl_build_packet_message().
> Proper support for GSO/GRO packets (no segmentation,
> and no checksumming) needs application cooperation, if we
> want no regressions.
Since ipqueue is gone we might be able to push the segmentation
down to nfnetlink_queue. Then new userspace applications
could indicate a 'I won't verify checksums and will handle huge
packets'.
Are you working on something like this?
--
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