[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1383809490.9412.50.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 23:31:30 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
hkchu@...gle.com, mwdalton@...gle.com
Subject: Re: gso: Attempt to handle mega-GRO packets
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 15:15 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> So what in our stack violates this assumption? We've never handled
> arbitrary frag_lists in GSO and I see no reason why we need to start
> doing that now.
I do see this, skb_segment() is generic.
>
> Also GRO was designed to only merge packets that satisfy these
> assumptions so that through GSO the original packets can be
> recovered without losing end-to-end connectivity. This is really
> important for routers/switches.
I think we all agree on this, and we should keep this property.
The point is : skb_segment() is not tied to GRO anymore.
My patch handles virtio_net just fine, I see nothing really malicious in
virtio_net.
In particular, each skb found in the frag_list can be of any size,
and not an exact MSS multiple.
I see frag_list as a way to extend skb capacity, not as something
tied to GRO/GSO.
I worked last year so that we no longer had the frag_list being used in
GRO stack. frag_list was no longer needed, thanks to skb->head_frag
--
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