netdev - Re: [net PATCH 2/2] ipv4/GRO: Make GRO conform to RFC 6864

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:	Fri, 01 Apr 2016 19:15:33 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	aduyck@...antis.com, tom@...bertland.com, jesse@...nel.org,
	alexander.duyck@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [net PATCH 2/2] ipv4/GRO: Make GRO conform to RFC 6864

On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 09:57 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I do not particularly care, but it is worth mentioning that GRO+TSO
> > would not be idempotent anymore.
> 
> We could easily fix that by adding a feature bit to control this,
> something like SKB_GSO_TCP_FIXEDID.

I understood the patch allowed to aggregate 4 segments having

ID=12   ID=40   ID=80  ID=1000

-> resulting GRO packet with 4 segments and ID=12.  TSO would generate
12,13,14,15   or 12,12,12,12 with your flag ?

(Before the patch no aggregation took place and exact same packets were
forwarded with 12, 40, 80, 1000)

As I said, I am not sure we should care :)