Re: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

From: Alan Davey Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 12:34:07 + > - all future applications have to continue to implement their own > fragmentation code, duplicating that which already exists in the kernel They have to do this anyways, don't you see this? Otherwise they

RE: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Alan Davey wrote: >> >>> The only case that would break is that where an application relies on >>> the existing (documented as a bug) feature of getting an EMSGSIZE >>> return code in the case of an over-sized packet. Applications that >>> perform their own

Re: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

Hello! I can tell why it has not been done initially. Main problem was in IP options, which can be present in raw packet. They have to be properly fragmented, some options are to be deleted on fragments. Not that it is too complicated, it is just boring and ugly and inconsistent with IP_HDRINCL

Re: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

From: Paul Jakma Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:55:11 +0100 (BST) > On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Alan Davey wrote: > >> The only case that would break is that where an application relies on >> the existing (documented as a bug) feature of getting an EMSGSIZE >> return code in the case of an

RE: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Alan Davey wrote: The only case that would break is that where an application relies on the existing (documented as a bug) feature of getting an EMSGSIZE return code in the case of an over-sized packet. Applications that perform their own fragmentation would be

Re: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

On 31.05.2016 20:39, David Miller wrote: > From: Alan Davey > Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:23:45 +0100 > >> One of the bugs documented in the raw(7) man page is as follows: When the >> IP_HDRINCL option is set, datagrams will not be fragmented and are limited to >> the

RE: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

From: David Miller [mailto:da...@davemloft.net] Sent: 08 June 2016 18:26 >> - The current behaviour is counter-intuitive (fragmentation takes >> - place in all other cases) and therefore different to what >> - everyone expects. > > But it's what all existing applications must expect, and as

Re: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

From: Alan Davey Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:41:31 + > - The current behaviour is counter-intuitive (fragmentation takes > - place in all other cases) and therefore different to what > - everyone expects. But it's what all existing applications must expect, and as

RE: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

H] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set. From: Alan Davey <alan.da...@metaswitch.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:23:45 +0100 One of the bugs documented in the raw(7) man page is as follows: When the IP_HDRINCL option is set, datagrams will not be fragmented and

Re: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

Hi Please do not use "top-posting" here. Alan Davey wrote: > Hi David > > Thank you for your email. I understand raw IP sockets have worked this way > for a long time, but I think that there is real benefit in this patch for > little risk. Please take a look at the following and let me know

RE: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

agment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set. From: Alan Davey <alan.da...@metaswitch.com> Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:23:45 +0100 > One of the bugs documented in the raw(7) man page is as follows: When > the IP_HDRINCL option is set, datagrams will not be fragmented and are > lim

Re: [PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

From: Alan Davey Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:23:45 +0100 > One of the bugs documented in the raw(7) man page is as follows: When the > IP_HDRINCL option is set, datagrams will not be fragmented and are limited to > the interface MTU. > > This patch fixes the bug by

[PATCH] net: Fragment large datagrams even when IP_HDRINCL is set.

One of the bugs documented in the raw(7) man page is as follows: When the IP_HDRINCL option is set, datagrams will not be fragmented and are limited to the interface MTU. This patch fixes the bug by removing the check for "length > rt->dst.dev->mtu" in raw_send_hdrinc() (net/ipv4/raw.c).