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:	Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:43:40 -0700
From:	Jesse Gross <>
To:	Alexander Duyck <>
Cc:	Edward Cree <>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <>,
	David Miller <>,
	Alexander Duyck <>,
	Tom Herbert <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] ipv4/GRO: Allow multiple frames to use the same

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Alexander Duyck <> wrote:
> In RFC 6864 it is stated that we can essentially ignore the IPv4 ID field
> if we have not and will not use fragmentation.  Such a frame is defined
> as having the DF flag set to 1, and the MF and frag_offset as 0.  Currently
> for GRO we were requiring that the inner header always have an increasing
> IPv4 ID, but we are ignoring the outer value.
> This patch is a first step in trying to reverse some of that.  Specifically
> what this patch does is allow us to coalesce frames that have a static IPv4
> ID value.  So for example if we had a series of frames where the DF flag
> was set we would allow the same IPv4 ID value to be used for all the frames
> belonging to that flow.  This would become the standard behavior for TCP so
> it would support either a fixed IPv4 ID value, or one in which the value
> increments.
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <>

One thing that is a bit odd is that the TSO output procedure stays the
same. So that means that if we get a stream of packets with the DF bit
set and a constant IP ID, aggregate them with GRO, and the retransmit
with GSO/TSO then we'll get packets with IDs that increment for each
burst and then start back again to the original value. I guess it
doesn't matter in practice since the IDs are supposed to be ignored
but it does seem a little strange - especially because the new packets
will now be violating the rules of the same GRO implementation that
produced them.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists