From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94ACBC282C3 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB6C20870 for ; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729130AbfAVQYu (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:24:50 -0500 Received: from imap1.codethink.co.uk ([176.9.8.82]:38117 "EHLO imap1.codethink.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728745AbfAVQYu (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2019 11:24:50 -0500 Received: from [167.98.27.226] (helo=xylophone) by imap1.codethink.co.uk with esmtpsa (Exim 4.84_2 #1 (Debian)) id 1glyr0-0008WB-LM; Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:24:46 +0000 Message-ID: <1548174286.3229.299.camel@codethink.co.uk> Subject: GSO where gso_size is too big for hardware From: Ben Hutchings To: "David S. Miller" Cc: netdev , Daniel Axtens , Eric Dumazet Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 16:24:46 +0000 Organization: Codethink Ltd. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1+deb9u1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Last year you applied these fixes for a potential denial-of-service in the bnx2x driver: commit 2b16f048729bf35e6c28a40cbfad07239f9dcd90 Author: Daniel Axtens Date:   Wed Jan 31 14:15:33 2018 +1100     net: create skb_gso_validate_mac_len() commit 8914a595110a6eca69a5e275b323f5d09e18f4f9 Author: Daniel Axtens Date:   Wed Jan 31 14:15:34 2018 +1100     bnx2x: disable GSO where gso_size is too big for hardware However I don't understand why the check is done only in the bnx2x driver. Shouldn't the networking core ensure that gso_size + L3/L4 headers is <= the device MTU? If not, is every driver that does TSO expected to check this? Also, should these fixes go to stable? I'm not sure whether you're still handling stable patches for any of the unfixed versions (< 4.16) now. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Software Developer   Codethink Ltd https://www.codethink.co.uk/ Dale House, 35 Dale Street Manchester, M1 2HF, United Kingdom