netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/2] vxlan: Relax the MTU constraint on vxlan 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]

Date:	Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:31:38 +0000
From:	David Wragg <david@...ve.works>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] vxlan: Relax the MTU constraint on vxlan devices

Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch> writes:
>> +	int max_mtu = 65535;
>
> This should probably be represented as a new const DEV_MAX_MTU which
> can be used by veth, tun, and virtio as well instead of hardcoding
> this separately in each driver.

I discovered IP_MAX_MTU in net/route.h after putting the patch together.
Seems appropriate to use that?

>> +static int vxlan_change_mtu(struct net_device *dev, int new_mtu)
>> +{
>> +	struct vxlan_dev *vxlan = netdev_priv(dev);
>> +	struct vxlan_rdst *dst = &vxlan->default_dst;
>> +	struct net_device *lowerdev = __dev_get_by_index(vxlan->net,
>> +							 dst->remote_ifindex);
>> +	return __vxlan_change_mtu(dev, lowerdev, dst, new_mtu);
>
> Any particular reason for the indirection?

To make patch 2/2 simpler.  I can rearrange to eliminate the indirection
here if that is preferred.

David
--
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