netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] ethtool: Add support for toggling any of the GSO offloads

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: <CAKgT0Ufmg6w5KvHhLKY1ysdEB5py77hM8=XADzn6q9e6zED+3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 19:43:02 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>
Cc:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Alexander Duyck <aduyck@...antis.com>,
	Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] ethtool: Add support for toggling any of the GSO offloads

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 17:30 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 16:25 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> > >       [NETIF_F_GSO_IPIP_BIT] =         "tx-ipip-segmentation",
>>> > >       [NETIF_F_GSO_SIT_BIT] =          "tx-sit-segmentation",
>>> > >       [NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_BIT] =   "tx-udp_tnl-segmentation",
>>> > > +     [NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM_BIT] = "tx-udp_tnl-csum-segmentation",
>>> > > +     [NETIF_F_GSO_TUNNEL_REMCSUM_BIT] = "tx-remcsum-segmentation",
>>> > I think this should be "tx-tunnel-remote-checksum-segmentation", though
>>> > that is getting quite unwieldy.
>>> Right.  As it is I think we might be coming up on the 32 character
>>> limit for the strings.  Replacing csum with checksum would probably
>>> push us over.
>>
>> Right, I wasn't even thinking about the static limit!  That does weigh
>> rather heavily in favour of abbreviation here.
>>
>> Please do at least hyphenate "remcsum" though.
>
> I think that remote checksum offload is just a purely internal feature
> - that is no device will ever expose support for it, since it is
> explicitly to work around lack of hardware support. As a result, I
> don't know if it makes sense to show it through ethtool at all.

That's true.  I can probably drop that.  The two I cared about where
the GRE and UDP bits anyway.

- Alex