[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1408064099.6804.64.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:54:59 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] packet: handle too big packets for PACKET_V3
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 02:43 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Someone could use GRO to create packet trains to hide from intrustion
> detection systems, which maybe are the main user of TPACKET_V3. I don't
> think this is a good idea.
Presumably these tools already use a large enough bloc_size, and not a
4KB one ;)
Even without GRO, a jumbo frame (9K) can trigger the bug.
I do not think we need to skb_gso_segment() for the cases user setup a
really small bloc_size. This looks like a lot of consumed cycles (we
even might have to recompute the TCP checksums)
--
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