From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@myri.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: ossthema@de.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tklein@de.ibm.com,
raisch@de.ibm.com, jb.billaud@gmail.com, hering2@de.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lro: IP fragment checking
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:53:14 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49345CCA.1030209@myri.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081201.131810.158631503.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@myri.com>
> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:50:15 -0500
>
>> As to whether or not to do it in the drivers/hardware or in the
>> LRO code, I favor doing it in the LRO code just so that it is not
>> missed in some driver.
>
> Then there is no point in the hardware doing the check, if
> we're going to check it anyways.
>
> That's part of my point about why this check doesn't belong
> here.
What hardware does an explicit check for fragmentation?
In most cases, aren't we just relying on the hardware checksum
to be wrong on fragmented packets? That works 99.999% of the time,
but the TCP checksum is pretty weak, and it is possible to
have a fragmented packet where the first fragment has the same
checksum as the entire packet.
I'd rather have a fragmentation check at the LRO layer to remove
any ambiguity. But if you still object, I'll at least have to
submit a patch which adds an explicit check in myri10ge.
Drew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-01 21:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-01 8:58 [PATCH] lro: IP fragment checking Jan-Bernd Themann
2008-12-01 9:41 ` David Miller
2008-12-01 17:50 ` Andrew Gallatin
2008-12-01 21:18 ` David Miller
2008-12-01 21:53 ` Andrew Gallatin [this message]
2008-12-01 22:09 ` Ben Hutchings
2008-12-02 0:02 ` Andrew Gallatin
2008-12-02 0:18 ` Ben Hutchings
2008-12-02 14:42 ` Andrew Gallatin
2008-12-02 15:18 ` Ben Hutchings
2008-12-02 15:36 ` Andrew Gallatin
2008-12-02 0:07 ` David Miller
2008-12-02 0:19 ` Andrew Gallatin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49345CCA.1030209@myri.com \
--to=gallatin@myri.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hering2@de.ibm.com \
--cc=jb.billaud@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ossthema@de.ibm.com \
--cc=raisch@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tklein@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.