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]

Message-ID: <20160402021917.GA19570@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Sat, 2 Apr 2016 10:19:17 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
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 Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 07:15:33PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 09:57 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > 
> > 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

Right.  But I haven't seen any justification that we should aggregate
such packets at all.  The only valid case that I have seen is for
the case of unchanging IDs, no?

Cheers,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt