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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20171117.230236.454311190593633732.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 17 Nov 2017 23:02:36 +0900 (KST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Cc:     tom@...bertland.com, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, cklein@...umu.se,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ahmeda@...umu.se
Subject: Re: GRO disabled with IPv4 options

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 08:51:57 -0500

> ipv6_gro_receive already pulls common ones with ipv6_gso_pull_exthdrs.
> And to add a counterpoint: GRO has to be resilient to malformed packets,
> so there is value in keeping it simple and limited to the common case.

Agreed.

Also it is not exactly clear what should happen with all IP option
types when reconstructing the original packet stream on the GSO side.

It just sounds incredibly complicated to me for little to no gain.