netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALx6S35+A4ematcdnHwBa-EBWXwBo19gaDp5zhNKG_7xxfU=Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:43:17 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Anjali Singhai Jain <anjali.singhai@...el.com>,
	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kiran Patil <kiran.patil@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:37 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:43:35 +0100
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015, at 18:32, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> As you said this in only feedback and nobody is forcing anyone to do
>>> anything. But encouraging HW vendors to provide generic mechanisms so
>>> that your users can use whatever protocol they want is the exact
>>> _opposite_ of punishing users, this is very much a pro-user direction.
>>
>> Some users will suffer worse performance in case we don't correctly set
>> ip_summed for a specific protocol before we do the copy operations from
>> user space into skbs but if they are always done in the driver.
>
> Your concern presumes that looking backwards is as important as looking
> forward.
>
> We want to simplify things _and_ move away from protocol specific
> csums, and if some old crufty hardware based systems pay some performance
> cost for this I say so be it.
>
> So this is not a valid argument against Tom's changes in my mind.
>
And for that matter these arguments have nothing to do with these UDP
encapsulation patches at all, they seem to be directed to the patches
to eliminate NETIF_F_IP{V6}_CSUM so please post on that thread.
--
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