netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] qed/qede: Tunnel hardware GRO support

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: <CO2PR11MB0088B3C577EC110B845C17B3972D0@CO2PR11MB0088.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:	Thu, 23 Jun 2016 04:10:53 +0000
From:	Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@....com>,
	Manish Chopra <manish.chopra@...gic.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>,
	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] qed/qede: Tunnel hardware GRO support

>> Claiming that hardware assist GRO is not possible is a plain mantra.

> I have no issue claiming hardware assist GRO is possible.  My problem
> is saying that the GRO feature flag can be used to enable it.  I would
> argue that any packet aggregation at the device or driver level is LRO
> regardless of how close it comes to GRO feature wise.  GRO should only
> be occurring in the receive path after calling the appropriate GRO
> function.  Otherwise it becomes really difficult to work around any
> possible issues that the hardware assisted GRO introduces without
> paying a huge penalty.  We need to keep these feature flags separate.
> I thought that was the whole reason why we have the distinction
> between LRO and GRO in the first place.

Then again, if you're basically saying every HW-assisted offload on
receive should be done under LRO flag, what would be the use case
where a GRO-assisted offload would help?

I.e., afaik LRO is superior to GRO in `brute force' -
it creates better packed packets and utilizes memory better
[with all the obvious cons such as inability for defragmentation].
So if you'd have the choice of having an adpater perform 'classic'
LRO aggregation or something that resembles a GRO packet,
what would be the gain from doing the latter?