From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnon Warshavsky Subject: Re: removing mbuf error flags Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 23:00:51 +0300 Message-ID: References: <572352A3.6030400@6wind.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Don Provan , Olivier Matz , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , John Daley To: Jay Rolette Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com (mail-ob0-f178.google.com [209.85.214.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6695424 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 22:00:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id j9so60926021obd.3 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:00:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Jay Rolette wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Don Provan wrote: > > > >From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > > >Subject: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags > > > > > >My opinion is that invalid packets should not be given to the > application > > and only a statistic counter should be incremented. > > > > The idea of an application that handles bad packets is perfectly valid. > > Most applications don't want to see them, of course, but, conceptually, > > some applications would want to ask for bad packets because they are > > specifically designed to handle various networking problems including > those > > that result in bad packets that the application can look at and report. > > Furthermore, it makes technical sense for DPDK to support such > applications. > > > > Having said that, I have no idea if that's why that field was added, an= d > I > > don=E2=80=99t myself care if DPDK provides that feature in the future. = I just > > thought I'd put the idea out there in case it makes any difference to > you. > > If it were me, I'd probably decide it isn't hurting anything and not > bother > > to remove it in case some day someone wants to implement that feature i= n > > one driver or another. > > > > Yep. Pretty much any networking security product needs to see malformed > packets. > > Jay > +1 for letting the application see bad packets and decide what to do with them. We had some zero order insertion issues in the past where the ability to let the application capture malformed/unexpected packets was very helpful. /Arnon.