netdev - Re: macvlan: optimizing the receive path?

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]

Date:	Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:04:45 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jbaron@...mai.com
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net
Subject: Re: macvlan: optimizing the receive path?

On 10/04/2014 08:42 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:28:13 -0400
> 
>> --- a/drivers/net/macvlan.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/macvlan.c
>> @@ -321,8 +321,8 @@ static rx_handler_result_t macvlan_handle_frame(struct sk_buff **pskb)
>>         skb->dev = dev;
>>         skb->pkt_type = PACKET_HOST;
>>  
>> -       ret = netif_rx(skb);
>> -
>> +      macvlan_count_rx(vlan, len, true, 0);
>> +      return RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER;
>>  out:
>>         macvlan_count_rx(vlan, len, ret == NET_RX_SUCCESS, 0);
>>         return RX_HANDLER_CONSUMED;
> 
> That last argument to macvlan_count_rx() is a bool and thus should be
> specified as "false".  Yes I know other areas of this file get it
> wrong too.
> 
> Also, what about GRO?  Won't we get GRO processing if we do this via
> netif_rx() but not via the RX_HANDLER_ANOTHER route?  Just curious...

Wouldn't GRO already happen at the lower level?  For macvlan-to-macvlan,
you'd typically have large packets so no need for GRO.

-vlad

--
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