[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1365783471.2791.3.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:17:51 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.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, 2013-04-12 at 09:18 +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.
I don't know the TCP or the GSO forwarding code well enough to be
certain. So don't simply trust me on this.
Ben.
> Is this the sort of limit others might be interested in, should we have
> a global #define?
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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