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: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 20:34:34 -0800 From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: typhoon: implement ndo_features_check method On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 20:26:58 -0800 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > Should we always clear SG? If we want to make the assumption that > > non-gso skbs are never this long (like the driver did before) then > > we should never clear SG. If we do we risk one of the gso-generated > > segs will also be longer than 32 frags. > > If I read the comment (deleted in this patch), it seems the 32 limits > is about TSO only ? > > #warning Typhoon only supports 32 entries in its SG list for TSO, disabling TSO > > This is why I chose this implementation. Right, sort of my point - to stay true to old code we don't need to worry about SG ? The old code didn't.. > > Thought I should ask. > > > > > + } > > > + return features; > > > > return vlan_features_check(skb, features) ? > > Hmm... not sure why we duplicate vlan_features_check() & > vxlan_features_check() in all ndo_features_check() handlers :/ I was wondering as well. I can only speculate.. :S
Powered by blists - more mailing lists