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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 3 Jan 2015 09:01:07 +1100
From:	Herbert Xu <>
To:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: tcp: Do not apply TSO segment limit to non-TSO packets

On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 03:36:55PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <>
> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 10:24:00 -0800
> > Non TSO/GSO path is known to be better for devices unable to perform TX
> > checksumming, as we compute the checksum at the time we copy data from
> > user to kernel (csum_and_copy_from_user() from tcp_sendmsg())).
> Non-SG capable devices suffer in this scenerio as well.

Yes I was referring to using GSO on non-SG/non-checksumming devices.
Anything that supports checksum/SG should obviously be using GSO.

IIRC when I first tested this GSO is basically on par for the non-SG
case as the overhead of the extra copying was offset by the benefit
of a larger MTU through the stack.

So has anyone actually observed worse performance with GSO on these
devices (you could even test on a GSO-capable device simply by
disabling checksumming)?

Also the fact that this bug took two years to surface means that
very few people are actually using non-GSO in the real world as
this bug is easily triggered by a PMTU event.

Email: Herbert Xu <>
Home Page:
PGP Key:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists