netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] vxlan: Remote checksum offload

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]

Message-ID: <CAEP_g=8OEDNdA46zrnL+z8cw2pnHkoZySyHKLX6cfj1L6VcBYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 25 Nov 2014 10:54:26 -0800
From:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] vxlan: Remote checksum offload

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> Add support for remote checksum offload in VXLAN. This commandeers a
>>> reserved bit to indicate that RCO is being done, and uses the low order
>>> reserved eight bits of the VNI to hold the start and offset values in a
>>> compressed manner.
>>
>> Why do you think that this is OK for you to do? It's clear that there
>> is no consensus for this (and in fact there are other proposals that
>> use that bit in a different way).
>
> I asked on nvo3 list (which I believe is the appropriate forum) what
> the best way to do this is but haven't gotten any response. I will ask
> again-- I would assume that with an implementation and data in hand
> that might be better basis for discussion.
>
> The flag bit is currently unused in the Linux implementation, so I
> don't think it can break anything as of now. I suppose we could make
> RCO for VXLAN a config option and possibly change to use a different
> if consensus is reached on the right approach in the future.

This will definitely break things if this is applied now and the bit
is later used for a different purpose in the future as there will be
no way to update existing deployments.

There are a ton of conflicting proposals in this space so I think
there are only two possible solutions at this point:
 * Potentially support all of them and chose a variant at runtime
though a series of configuration options. This seems ugly,
particularly for GRO.
 * Stick to the version described in the RFC.

I don't think the third alternative of protocol design by order of
patch submission is viable.
--
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