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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20160502.191614.608026435064266168.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Mon, 02 May 2016 19:16:14 -0400 (EDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: marcelo.leitner@...il.com Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, vyasevich@...il.com, nhorman@...driver.com, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, David.Laight@...LAB.COM, alexander.duyck@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] sctp: Add GSO support From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:33:31 -0300 > This patchset adds sctp GSO support. > > Performance tests indicates that increases throughput by 10% if using > bigger chunk sizes, specially if bigger than MTU. For small chunks, it > doesn't help much if not using heavy firewall rules. > > For small chunks it will probably be of more use once we get something > like MSG_MORE as David Laight had suggested. > > I believe I could address all comments from the RFC attempt. Are these packets idempotent? Ie. if we GRO a bunch of SCTP frames on receive and that GRO frame is forwarded rather than received locally, is the same exact packet stream emitted on transmit?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists