Re: Looking for a lost patch

2015-05-27 Thread Steffen Klassert
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 05:25:24PM -0400, David Miller wrote: From: Steffen Klassert steffen.klass...@secunet.com Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:32:23 +0200 On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:32:15AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: On 05/19/2015 12:57 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote: The MTU should be 1500.

Re: Looking for a lost patch

2015-05-27 Thread David Miller
From: Steffen Klassert steffen.klass...@secunet.com Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:35:16 +0200 We currently check if a socket is attached to a skb and do socket error notification in this case, otherwise we do PMTU discovery if the packet is too big. Looks like this socket check is not sufficient

Re: Looking for a lost patch

2015-05-27 Thread Steffen Klassert
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:46:03AM -0400, David Miller wrote: From: Steffen Klassert steffen.klass...@secunet.com Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:35:16 +0200 We currently check if a socket is attached to a skb and do socket error notification in this case, otherwise we do PMTU discovery if the

Re: Looking for a lost patch

2015-05-21 Thread David Miller
From: Steffen Klassert steffen.klass...@secunet.com Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 08:32:23 +0200 On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:32:15AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: On 05/19/2015 12:57 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote: The MTU should be 1500. All the IPsec overhead is handled by PMTU discovery, just like in

Re: Looking for a lost patch

2015-05-20 Thread Alexander Duyck
On 05/19/2015 11:32 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:32:15AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote: On 05/19/2015 12:57 AM, Steffen Klassert wrote: The MTU should be 1500. All the IPsec overhead is handled by PMTU discovery, just like in the case we use IPsec without vti tunnels.