netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 9/9] ixgbe/ixgbevf: Add support for GSO partial

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: <CAKgT0Udzx=Y9Jri8y5KN1DdZUYSn9gKRnXDQ2qY+05a0knoEtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:42:01 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
Cc:	Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 9/9] ixgbe/ixgbevf: Add support for GSO partial

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com> wrote:
>> This patch adds support for partial GSO segmentation in the case of GRE or
>> UDP encapsulated frames.
>>
>> The one bit in this patch that is a bit controversial is the fact that we
>> are leaving the inner IPv4 IP ID as a static value in the case of
>> segmentation.  As per RFC6864 this should be acceptable as TCP frames set
>> the DF bit so the IP ID should be ignored.  However this is not always the
>> case as header compression schemes for PPP and SLIP can end up taking a
>> performance hit as they have to record the fact that the ID didn't change
>> as expected.
>>
>> In addition GRO was examining the IP ID field as well.  As such on older
>> GRO implementations TSO frames from this driver may end up blocking GRO on
>> the other end which will likely hurt performance instead of helping it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>
>
> I wasn't able to apply this patch, it seems like it might be based on
> some Intel driver patches that haven't been merged into net-next yet?

Yeah, I based it off of Jeff's Kirshers dev-queue branch of his
next-queue git repo.  Odds are it isn't working because net-next still
doesn't have the HW_CSUM patches I submitted a couple months ago.  I
ended up doing that as I needed to pull in that and a couple of other
fixes for i40e in order to apply the patches for those two drivers.

- Alex