[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130412084822.GA11321@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:48:22 +0100
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>,
"wdauchy@...il.com" <wdauchy@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] xen-netfront: reduce gso_max_size to account for
ethernet header
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 09:18:04AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 21:04 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 12:07:33PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > The maximum packet including ethernet header that can be handled by netfront /
> > > netback wire format is 65535. Reduce gso_max_size accordingly.
> > >
> > > Drop skb and print warning when skb->len > 65535. This can 1) save the effort
> > > to send malformed packet to netback, 2) help spotting misconfiguration of
> > > netfront in the future.
> > >
> >
> > Any opinion on how much space should be reserved? From a previous thread
> > Ben seemed to suggest 90 (Ethernet + VLAN tag + IPv6 + TCP + timestamp
> > option = 90 bytes).
>
> I trust Ben and that seems as good as anything to me.
>
> Is this the sort of limit others might be interested in, should we have
> a global #define?
>
We shall have a global define in this case.
#define XEN_NETFRONT_MAX_HEADER ? I'm bad at naming things.
Wei.
> Ian.
>
--
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