On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Tom Herbert <therb...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On 21 November 2014 at 09:59, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> On 20 November 2014 16:19, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
