All of
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen: netfront: Drop GSO SKBs which do not have csum_blank.
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:44:05 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

From: Ian Campbell <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:10:00 +0000

> The Linux network stack expects all GSO SKBs to have ip_summed ==
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL (which implies that the frame contains a partial
> checksum) and the Xen network ring protocol similarly expects an SKB
> which has GSO set to also have NETRX_csum_blank (which also implies a
> partial checksum). Therefore drop such frames on receive otherwise
> they will trigger the warning in skb_gso_segment.
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <>

The GSO code does in fact warn in the logs about this situation, but
it _DOES NOT_ drop the packet.  Therefore, either you guys should do
the same or we should make the generic code drop too.

I think the generic code is doing the right thing, therefore what you
should probably do is put the checksum of the SKB into the right state
when you detect this situation (and perhaps bump a ethtool driver
local statistic which specifically tracks this exact event).

Or, even better, you should fix whatever causes this in the first

Dropping frames ought to be the last option, stuff like this is
impossible to debug if someone starts wondering why they are getting
frame drops.

You don't even account for this in a unique statistic somewhere, so
people can figure out the actual spcific _reason_ for the drop.  They
will just see "rx_error" and scratch their heads.

Anyways, I think dropping is fundamentally wrong, so I'm not applying

  reply	other threads:[~2011-01-26  3:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-05 13:23 [PATCH] xen: netfront: Drop GSO SKBs which do not have csum_blank Ian Campbell
2011-01-11 11:46 ` Ian Campbell
2011-01-22  0:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-01-22  9:43   ` Ian Campbell
2011-01-24 17:55     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2011-01-25 17:09       ` Ian Campbell
2011-01-25 17:09         ` [PATCH 1/2] xen: netfront: refactor code for checking validity of incoming skbs Ian Campbell
2011-01-25 17:09           ` Ian Campbell
2011-01-25 17:10         ` [PATCH 2/2] xen: netfront: Drop GSO SKBs which do not have csum_blank Ian Campbell
2011-01-25 17:10           ` Ian Campbell
2011-01-26  3:44           ` David Miller [this message]
2011-01-26 11:56             ` Ian Campbell
2011-01-27 14:14               ` [PATCH] xen: netfront: handle incoming GSO SKBs which are not CHECKSUM_PARTIAL Ian Campbell
2011-01-27 14:14                 ` Ian Campbell
2011-01-27 22:23                 ` David Miller

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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.