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: <157393863283F442885425D2C45428564F202BB6@nasanexd02f.na.qualcomm.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Apr 2013 00:12:12 +0000
From:	"Huang, Xiong" <xiong@....qualcomm.com>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
CC:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Anders Boström <anders@...insight.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"565404@...s.debian.org" <565404@...s.debian.org>
Subject: RE: Bug#565404: linux-image-2.6.26-2-amd64: atl1e: TSO is broken

> > Hannes,  Thanks for your testing !
> >
> >  simply revising MAX_TX_BUF_LEN to 0x4000 will cause incorrect TX
> configuration...
> > I mean you can try to put a gso size limit of 0x4000 (or 0x5000)....
> 
> I tested both values with multi-gigabyte nfsv4 traffic and both values are ok.
> If I understand you correctly 0x4000 is a safe limit?

Since Win7 driver uses 15000 bytes as its max packet length for TSO, I think 0x3C00 is more safer than 0x4000. :)

Thanks
Xiong

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ