WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

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