[Xen-devel] Re: [1/4] [NET] back: Fix maximum fragment check

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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