| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check
On 1 Jul 2006, at 04:33, Herbert Xu wrote:
Good point. I'll get rid of it.
Actually, we do need it for two reasons:
1. To indicate protocol for drivers that can cope with malformed
packets.
The header verification will be skipped for such drivers.
2. To carry extra flags such as ECN that cannot harm the host if set
incorrectly.
Fair enough, that makes sense.
Given that Linux will cope with malformed headers or a bogus gso_type,
I'd
really like to keep the type value uniform between Linux and Xen.
I'm uncomfortable with this, even though it makes things a little
easier now. For sanity I want to see netfront/netback explicitly grok
flags rather than dumbly pass them through. I'd prefer uint8_t protocol
and uint8_t flags. Former is a protocol enumeration; latter is unused
now but we can add ECN and so on later. By the way: will we need
netback to advertise support for the ECN flag? I'm not sure exactly
what it will mean, and whether it can just be ignored by netbacks that
don't support it?
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home