netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/7] net: foo-over-udp (fou)

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=9Rawi_PPW1d=_7xCjWK-QT7_Ph7JOG0XP7UhWyvo58Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Sep 2014 17:15:07 -0700
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 0/7] net: foo-over-udp (fou)

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> * Notes
>>>>>   - This patch set does not implement GSO for FOU. The UDP encapsulation
>>>>>     code assumes TEB, so that will need to be reimplemented.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please clarify this point little further? Specifically, today
>>>> few NICs are
>>>> advertizing NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL when they are practically GSO
>>>> capable only w.r.t to VXLAN. What happens when such NIC expose this
>>>> cap and a large guest frame goes through GRE over UDP or alike tunneling?
>>>>
>>> My interpretation is that NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL means L3/L4
>>> encapsulation over UDP, not VXLAN. If the NIC implements things
>>> properly following the generic interface then I believe it should work
>>> with various flavors of UDP encapsulation (FOU, GUE, VXLAN, VXLAN-gpe,
>>> geneve, LISP, L2TP, nvgre, or whatever else people might dream up).
>>> This presumes that any encapsulation headers doesn't require any per
>>> segment update (so no GRE csum for instance). The stack will set up
>>> inner headers as needed, which should enough to provide to devices the
>>> offsets inner IP and TCP header which are needed for the the TSO
>>> operation (outer IP and UDP can be deduced also).
>>
>> From the NICs that I am familiar with this is mostly true. The main
>> part that is missing from the current implementation is a length
>> limit: just because the hardware can skip over headers to an offset
>> doesn't mean that it can do so to an arbitrary depth. For example, in
>> the NICs that are exposing VXLAN as NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL we can
>> probably assume that this is limited to 8 bytes. With the Intel NICs
>> that were just announced with Geneve support, this limit has been
>> increased to 64. If we add a parameter to the driver interface to
>> expose this then it should be generic across tunnels.
>
> Sounds reasonable, although I think you'll need to define precisely
> what length refers to.

I agree, the definition is important.
--
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