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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:26:24 -0400 From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> To: Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me> Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>, Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>, Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: avoid unneeded UDP L4 and fraglist GSO resegmentation > >> I think it is fine to reenable this again, now that UDP sockets will > >> segment unexpected UDP GSO packets that may have looped. We previously > >> added general software support in commit 83aa025f535f ("udp: add gso > >> support to virtual devices"). Then reduced its scope to egress only in > >> 8eea1ca82be9 ("gso: limit udp gso to egress-only virtual devices") to > >> handle that edge case. > > Regarding bonding and teaming: I think they should also use > NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE mask, not NETIF_F_ALL_TSO, as SCTP also has > a software fallback. This way we could also remove a separate > advertising of NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4, as it will be included in the first. > > So, if this one: > 1. Add NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 and NETIF_F_GSO_FRAGLIST to > NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE; > 2. Change bonding and teaming features mask from NETIF_F_ALL_TSO | > NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 to NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE; > 3. Check that every virtual netdev has NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE _or_ > NETIF_F_GSO_MASK in its advertising. > > is fine for everyone, I'll publish more appropriate and polished v2 soon. I think we can revert 8eea1ca82be9. Except for the part where it defines the feature in NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL instead of NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE. That appears to have been a peculiar choice. I can't recall exactly why I chose that. Most likely because that was (at the time) the only macro that covered all the devices I wanted to capture. As for SCTP: that has the same concern that prompted that commit for UDP: is it safe to forward those packets to the ingress path today?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists