netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/5] Support fraglist GRO/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]

Date:   Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:11:56 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 0/5] Support fraglist GRO/GSO

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:41:06AM +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 12:17:08PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:25 AM Steffen Klassert
> > <steffen.klassert@...unet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patchset adds support to do GRO/GSO by chaining packets
> > > of the same flow at the SKB frag_list pointer. This avoids
> > > the overhead to merge payloads into one big packet, and
> > > on the other end, if GSO is needed it avoids the overhead
> > > of splitting the big packet back to the native form.
> > >
> > > Patch 1 Enables UDP GRO by default.
> > >
> > > Patch 2 adds a netdev feature flag to enable listifyed GRO,
> > > this implements one of the configuration options discussed
> > > at netconf 2019.
> > >
> > > Patch 3 adds a netdev software feature set that defaults to off
> > > and assigns the new listifyed GRO feature flag to it.
> > >
> > > Patch 4 adds the core infrastructure to do fraglist GRO/GSO.
> > >
> > > Patch 5 enables UDP to use fraglist GRO/GSO if configured and no
> > > GRO supported socket is found.
> > 
> > Very nice feature, Steffen.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > Aside from questions around performance,
> > my only question is really how this relates to GSO_BY_FRAGS.
> > 
> > More specifically, whether we can remove that in favor of using your
> > new skb_segment_list. That would actually be a big first step in
> > simplifying skb_segment back to something manageable.
> 
> As Marcelo pointed out, this should be doable.

And easier than I had thought :)
But please let me know if you need anything on it. This approach is
much cleaner.