Message-ID: <49354970.10804@myri.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:42:56 -0500
From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@myri.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, 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
References: <4933A74F.3050809@de.ibm.com>	<493423D7.5030203@myri.com>	 <20081201.131810.158631503.davem@davemloft.net> <49345CCA.1030209@myri.com>	 <1228169379.3073.13.camel@achroite> <49347B0B.8030705@myri.com> <1228177130.3073.23.camel@achroite>
In-Reply-To: <1228177130.3073.23.camel@achroite>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1948
Lines: 48

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 19:02 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:53 -0500, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>> Any that implements TCP/UDP checksumming properly.
>> How many do?
> 
> Good question. ;-)
> 
>>>> 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.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> If your hardware/firmware wrongly claims to be able to verify the
>>> TCP/UDP checksum for an IP fragment, it seems to me you should deal with
>>> that in your driver or fix the firmware.
>> We do partial checksums.
> 
> So you should check for IP fragmentation in your get_frag_header() along
> with all the other checks you've got to do.

Indeed, and that is the patch I intend to submit if the fragment
check in inet_lro is rejected.  I still think the check belongs
in the inet lro code though, and I'm worried it is being rejected
for the wrong reasons..

Drew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/