netdev - Re: GRO disabled with IPv4 options

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: <20171116214050.GA32225@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:40:50 +1100
From:   Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:     Cristian Klein <cklein@...umu.se>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ahmed Ali-Eldin <ahmeda@...umu.se>
Subject: Re: GRO disabled with IPv4 options

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 04:12:43PM +0100, Cristian Klein wrote:
>
> Does somebody know the rationale for this? Is it because IPv4
> options are rarely used, hence implementing GRO in that case does
> not pay off or are there some caveats? Specifically would it make

Precisely.  GRO is about optimising for the common case.  At the
time there was no impetus to support IP options.

> sense to do GRO when the IPv4 options are byte-identical in
> consecutive packets?

Yes there is no reason why we can't do this.  As long as it doesn't
penalise the non-IP-option case too much.

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