netdev - Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: move back the IB LL address into the hard header

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: <20161011183019.GC20253@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:30:19 -0600
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:     Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
        Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/ipoib: move back the IB LL address into the hard
 header

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 02:17:51PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:

> Well, not exactly.  Even if we put 65520 into the scripts, the kernel
> will silently drop it down to 65504.  It actually won't require anyone
> change anything, they just won't get the full value.  I experimented
> with this in the past for other reasons and an overly large MTU setting
> just resulted in the max MTU.  I don't know if that's changed, but if it
> still works that way, this is much less of an issue than it might
> otherwise be.

So it is just docs and relying on PMTU? That is not as bad..

Still would be nice to avoid if at all possible..

Jason