[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1512062799.19682.19.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 09:26:39 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Solio Sarabia <solio.sarabia@...el.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, sthemmin@...rosoft.com,
shiny.sebastian@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] veth: propagate bridge GSO to peer
On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 09:10 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
>
> The problem goes back into the core GSO networking code.
> Something like this is needed.
>
> static inline bool netif_needs_gso(struct sk_buff *skb,
> const struct net_device *dev,
> netdev_features_t features)
> {
> return skb_is_gso(skb) &&
> (!skb_gso_ok(skb, features) ||
> unlikely(skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs > dev-
> >gso_max_segs) || << new
> unlikely(skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size > dev-
> >gso_max_size) || << new
> unlikely((skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_PARTIAL) &&
> (skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY)));
> }
>
> What that will do is split up the monster GSO packets if they ever
> bleed
> across from one device to another through the twisty mazes of packet
> processing paths.
Since very few drivers have these gso_max_segs / gso_max_size, check
could be done in their ndo_features_check()
Powered by blists - more mailing lists