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: <20141112131546.GA8745@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:15:46 +0100
From:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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

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)?

                                                         Michal Kubecek

--
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