netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] virtio-net: use NETIF_F_GRO_HW instead of NETIF_F

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, 12 Aug 2021 14:18:21 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ivan@...stigetransportation.com,
        xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com, willemb@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] virtio-net: use NETIF_F_GRO_HW instead of NETIF_F_LRO


在 2021/8/12 下午12:50, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 11:23:04AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> 在 2021/8/12 上午6:17, Jakub Kicinski 写道:
>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:16:23 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> Try to fix this by using NETIF_F_GRO_HW instead so we're not
>>>> guaranteed to be re-segmented as original.
>>> This sentence may need rephrasing.
>>
>> Right, actually, I meant:
>>
>>
>> Try to fix this by using NETIF_F_GRO_HW instead. But we're not sure the
>> packet could be re-segmented to the exact original packet stream. Since it's
>> really depends on the bakcend implementation.
>>
>>
>>>> Or we may want a new netdev
>>>> feature like RX_GSO since the guest offloads for virtio-net is
>>>> actually to receive GSO packet.
>>>>
>>>> Or we can try not advertise LRO is control guest offloads is not
>>>> enabled. This solves the warning but will still slow down the traffic.
>>> IMO gro-hw fits pretty well, patch looks good.
>>
>> If the re-segmentation is not a issue. I will post a formal patch.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> It is but the point is even though spec did not require this
> we always allowed these configurations
> in the past so hopefully most of them are not broken and combine
> packets in the same way as GRO. Let's not break them all
> in an attempt to catch bad configs, and meanwhile amend
> the spec to recommend doing GW GRO.


Ok, let me add this in the commit log and send a formal patch.

Thanks


>