netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso

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: <20180418.133453.1026321777976247893.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:34:53 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com
Cc:     eric.dumazet@...il.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
        sridhar.samudrala@...el.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        willemb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 00/11] udp gso

From: Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:47:06 -0400

> - in the "GSO" proposal my 2000  bytes of data are sent as *two*
>   udp packets, each of them with a unique udp header, and uh_len set
>   to 1476 (for first) and 526 (for second). The receiver has no clue
>   that they are both part of the same UDP datagram, So wire format
>   is not the same, am I mistaken?

The sender is asking for two packets and this exact packetization,
that's why they explicitly set the socket option or provide the
cmsg value.

As Eric said, this is just exchanging N sendmsg() calls with 1.