Re: [PATCHv2 net] i40e: Implement ndo_gso_check()

[Jesse Gross]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Joe Stringer <joestringer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 21 November 2014 at 09:59, Joe Stringer <joestringer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 20 November 2014 16:19, Jesse Gross <jesse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I don't know if we need to have the check at all for IPIP though -
>>>> after all the driver doesn't expose support for it all (actually it
>>>> doesn't expose GRE either). This raises kind of an interesting
>>>> question about the checks though - it's pretty easy to add support to
>>>> the driver for a new GSO type (and I imagine that people will be
>>>> adding GRE soon) and forget to update the check.
>>>
>>> If the check is more conservative, then testing would show that it's
>>> not working and lead people to figure out why (and update the check).
>>
>> More concretely, one suggestion would be something like following at
>> the start of each gso_check():
>>
>> +       const int supported = SKB_GSO_TCPV4 | SKB_GSO_TCPV6 | SKB_GSO_FCOE |
>> +                             SKB_GSO_UDP | SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL;
>> +
>> +       if (skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & ~supported)
>> +               return false;
>
> This should already be handled by net_gso_ok.

My original point wasn't so much that this isn't handled at the moment
but that it's easy to add a supported GSO type but then forget to
update this check - i.e. if a driver already supports UDP_TUNNEL and
adds support for GRE with the same constraints. It seems not entirely
ideal that this function is acting as a blacklist rather than a
whitelist.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/