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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 6 Dec 2015 08:31:59 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <>
To:	Alexander Duyck <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <>,
	John Linville <>,
	Jesse Gross <>,
	Anjali Singhai Jain <>,
	Netdev <>,
	Kiran Patil <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] net: Generalize udp based tunnel offload

> The only spot I think you and I disagreed on was the approach.  I
> don't know if the hard push back does anything but punish the users by
> delaying the time needed to find a reasonable solution.  I really
> think if we are going to get the hardware vendors to change their
> behavior we have to create a market demand for it.  Having a bit of
> marketable data showing the folly of this approach versus the 1's
> compliment checksum would probably do more to encourage and/or shame
> them into it than simply pushing for this based on engineering
> opinion.
I don't know what "marketable data" means. But I do know that we're
like 70 postings into this thread, into the third patch set regarding
this, yet nobody has bothered to contribute any data on what these
patches do and what the quantifiable benefits are with HW offload of
these protocols. I would test this stuff myself, but I don't have
access to any NICs with necessary support. If someone else can start
testing and providing meaningful data it would be most helpful...
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