From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758804Ab3BGQVP (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:21:15 -0500 Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:57650 "EHLO webmail.solarflare.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754325Ab3BGQVN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: <1360254046.3605.8.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix kernel crash with macvtap on top of LRO From: Ben Hutchings To: Eric Dumazet CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , , Eilon Greenstein , Jeff Kirsher , Jesse Brandeburg , Bruce Allan , Carolyn Wyborny , Don Skidmore , Greg Rose , Peter P Waskiewicz Jr , Alex Duyck , John Ronciak , Tushar Dave , Jitendra Kalsaria , Sony Chacko , , John Fastabend , "David S. Miller" , Jacob Keller , , Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:20:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1360207111.28557.47.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1360193660.32217.39.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <1360207111.28557.47.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Organization: Solarflare Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 (3.2.3-3.fc16) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.17.20.137] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-19620.001 X-TM-AS-Result: No--21.372100-0.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 19:18 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 23:34 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > If we want to allow forwarding from LRO then net/ipv4/inet_lro.c also > > needs to set gso_type. > > Then, what is dev_disable_lro() purpose ? The purpose was to disable LRO when forwarding because they weren't compatible. If the consensus now is that the modifications made by LRO+TSO are acceptable in a bridge/router, then we should get rid of dev_disable_lro() and set both gso_size & gso_type on all LRO receive paths. If the consensus is still that we must preserve packets exactly (aside from the usual modifications by IP routers) then LRO should be disabled on all devices for which forwarding is enabled. (Also, we really ought to keep a count of the number of forwarders and use that in netdev_fix_features(), rather than doing a one-time disable.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.