netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] net: typhoon: implement ndo_features

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: <20220204203434.17f56b23@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
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