netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] sfc: implement encap TSO on EF100

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: <e1765f12-daa4-feb3-28e1-7d360830026d@solarflare.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:42:27 +0000
From:   Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
CC:     <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] sfc: implement encap TSO on EF100

On 30/10/2020 16:26, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Then you could (as follow-up) advertise without GSO_PARTIAL and avoid
> the whole transition through the gso layer?

The thing is, non-PARTIAL offload only supports tunnels that the NIC
 understands (single-layer UDP tunnels), but AIUI GSO_PARTIAL can
 support all sorts of other things, such as gretaps (though we'd need
 some more advertised features, I haven't figured out quite which
 ones yet but when I do and can test it I'll send a follow-up) and
 nested tunnels (as long as we don't need to edit the 'middle' IP ID,
 e.g. if it's DF or IPv6).  So we definitely want to advertise
 GSO_PARTIAL support.
But possibly I don't need to have NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL[_CSUM] in
 net_dev->gso_partial_features?

-ed