netdev - Re: [net-next 02/10] udp: Expand UDP tunnel common APIs

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: <CAEP_g=_Kqh8So6v4JFuJqfLwEUWo=Re-_Ak2btEzsdH=bfM8-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 00:35:16 -0400
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	Andy Zhou <azhou@...ira.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next 02/10] udp: Expand UDP tunnel common APIs

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> Which feature flags control the receive side parsing in the device?
>>
>> The only real features that need the port info are Rx hash and Rx
>> checksum.  If those are disabled then there shouldn't be any need for
>> the port numbers.  I don't recall if you can disable them separately
>> from the non-tunnel case though.  I believe they are linked to the
>> standard offloads.
>>
> Rx hash is unnecessary consideration because we can derive that from
> UDP header. The fact that we can deduce a reasonable hash is a major
> rationale of UDP encapsulation. We will need drivers to start
> enabling/supporting UDP RSS and providing RX hash to realize full
> benefits of this.

That's true for basic hashing but for more sophisticated things like
flow steering or sending OAM packets to control queues the hardware
still needs to be able to look into the header.

> Rx checksum is also an unnecessary consideration if devices return
> CHECKSUM_COMPLETE instead of CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. Pretty much
> anything can (and probably will) be encapsulated in UDP (VXLAN, GRE,
> MPLS, L2TP, IPIP, SIT, etc.), so if your hardware provides
> CHECKSUM_COMPLETE this immediately gives us easy calculation the
> embedded checksums no matter how many encapsulation layers there are.

This property only applies to ones-complement checksums though. If I
recall correctly, I believe you have a desire for something stronger
:)

> Another need for parsing UDP contents would be for LRO. This would
> require implementation of each encapsulation format supported. I
> believe that LRO pretty much deprecated, so maybe this is not an issue
> either.

I think only the old style of LRO is deprecated. Some drivers provide
"GRO" where the hardware supplies the original MSS and that works OK.

Some of these are obviously future looking but I think that means that
even if you got your desired changes, the use of the UDP port on
receive would only shift, not go away.
--
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