From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Mahesh Bandewar <maheshb@google.com>,
michael.chan@broadcom.com
Subject: Re: GSO where gso_size is too big for hardware
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:02:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSd92upBAyENTat8yKhB+qw8zvYjkT3hWgvyP6F4xDo1Cw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1548174286.3229.299.camel@codethink.co.uk>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 11:24 AM Ben Hutchings
<ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Last year you applied these fixes for a potential denial-of-service in
> the bnx2x driver:
>
> commit 2b16f048729bf35e6c28a40cbfad07239f9dcd90
> Author: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
> Date: Wed Jan 31 14:15:33 2018 +1100
>
> net: create skb_gso_validate_mac_len()
>
> commit 8914a595110a6eca69a5e275b323f5d09e18f4f9
> Author: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>
> 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.
Irrespective of the GSO issue, this sounds relevant to this other thread
Stack sends oversize UDP packet to the driver
https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg279006.html
which discusses a specific cause of larger than MTU packets and its
effect on the bnxt.
Perhaps these patches were initially applied to the bnx2x driver only,
because at the time that was the only nic known to lock up on such
packets? Either way, a device independent validation is indeed
probably preferable (independent of fixing that lo flapping root
cause).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-22 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-22 16:24 GSO where gso_size is too big for hardware Ben Hutchings
2019-01-22 17:02 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2019-01-22 23:41 ` Daniel Axtens
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=CA+FuTSd92upBAyENTat8yKhB+qw8zvYjkT3hWgvyP6F4xDo1Cw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dja@axtens.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=maheshb@google.com \
--cc=michael.chan@broadcom.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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.