netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] GENEVE/VXLAN: Enable outer Tx checksum by default

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: <56CC94D9.4030308@hpe.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:20:25 -0800
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
Cc:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>, Alex Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 0/2] GENEVE/VXLAN: Enable outer Tx checksum by
 default

On 02/23/2016 08:47 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Right, GRO should probably not coalesce packets with non-zero IP
> identifiers due to the loss of information. Besides that, RFC6848 says
> the IP identifier should only be set for fragmentation anyway so there
> shouldn't be any issue and really no need for HW TSO (or LRO) to
> support that.

You sure that is RFC 6848 "Specifying Civic Address Extensions in the 
Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO)" ?

In whichever RFC that may be, is it a SHOULD or a MUST, and just how 
many "other" stacks might be setting a non-zero IP ID on fragments with 
DF set?

rick jones

> We need to do increment IP identifier in UFO, but I only see one
> device (neterion) that advertises NETIF_F_UFO-- honestly, removing
> that feature might be another good simplification!
>
> Tom
>
>> --
>> -Ed