netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: Add ndo_gso

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 7 Oct 2014 22:41:32 +0100
From:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com,
	jesse@...ira.com, gerlitz.or@...il.com,
	alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	pshelar@...ira.com, azhou@...ira.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: Add ndo_gso_check

On 10/07/14 at 04:48pm, David Miller wrote:
> So we have to write new software in _EVERY_ driver to accomodate this.
> 
> That makes zero sense either, and it is unneeded complexity in the
> hardware.
> 
> COMPLETE works everywhere, on everything, with no driver changes, and
> is so much harder to get wrong.
> 
> Every protocol specific feature has major downsides whether you choose
> to see them or not.

It's probably not overly bold to state that the behaviour behind
CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY was not created for technical reasons in the
first place.

I enourage NICs to have protocol awareness in the absence of full
programmability but I agree with Dave that there is little to no
reason to expose anything but the full packet checksum to the CPU.
--
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