[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+mtBx8cMt1kV6tiEd=iVKsVdZeFif_6vZZ2TDuYZPGmz5XaNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 12:10:05 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
Andy Zhou <azhou@...ira.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add ndo_gso_check
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 11:51 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
> From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:15:32 -0700
>
> > but if HW has programmable parser it should be able to take advantage
> > of it and UNNECESSARY is an established model.
>
> Strongly disagree.
Another problem with UNNECESSARY is that the stack has no way to
validate what the HW is doing. If HW starts setting UNNECESSARY for
packets with bad checksums, this sort of bug can be really difficult
to detect. With CHECKSUM_COMPLETE it's much harder to have undetected
false positives like this, especially when we need to include pseudo
header in validation. UNNECESSARY really shouldn't be considered
robust for deployment IMO.
--
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