netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] dev_disable_lro() improvements for stacked devices

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: <20141112.150828.421966825872572028.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:08:28 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mkubecek@...e.cz
Cc:	vfalico@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, j.vosburgh@...il.com,
	andy@...yhouse.net, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] dev_disable_lro() improvements for
 stacked devices

From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:15:46 +0100

> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 09:47:52PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> 
>> Please do it generically.
>> 
>> Having a special stanza for each layered device type in
>> dev_disable_lro() is beyond stupid.  Especially when it
>> can in fact be done cleanly.
> 
> I gave it some thought and I would like ask one question first:
> 
> Does the upper-lower relationship always mean that upper device receives
> packets through its lower device(s) so that LRO should always be
> disabled for lower devices whenever there are some? Or should it be
> limited only to an explicit list of device types (vlan, macvlan, bond,
> team)?

This should be the case, anyone else?
--
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