From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com (mail-vk0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF7337B1 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 20:24:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-vk0-f53.google.com with SMTP id o133so1902689vka.0 for ; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:24:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infinite-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=jNpBBAw2g9pmmg/LI9epJ0BKynBoe73cHEV3Ifte2ZE=; b=B7U80fZUpFPJj2/G90gOkDB8NCj6yn3jqrdYwg7B93JZ4gMNy8eK9+tNoPCyAyTf6m wAYnvQYGaQt9CrSCoM7x4O+Zpe0k/7ru0agAbuCugFLS61vjD41qkWtUGTTmxsd2YJN5 X2nuZ5Wzu7rZih/D08tbih3HPgNn6QA6iMq4q40AdsloR1bThNaPsyLCznQKlG+suNPL Kbx8aKnOP2ZpfRBAVnGbshqlN9st+MZegG7clMnQRMfSN77C9gkssQtk5lG3Lg7/E4CN 0jbVy2TSg2X7d2h25TLAjr2cLRaYa0RuLHwpLShfY9DF9r0D/2zusEQya2jyTdtHD+/+ a3Ng== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=jNpBBAw2g9pmmg/LI9epJ0BKynBoe73cHEV3Ifte2ZE=; b=YpRz6hVSKjBp74CauNk5NK0kotUb9gS9c4gaISFoXFVGWGb8ZELruTGtH58X2fivko k5KNo+tufNDHksJcRMrEQ0UxxBK6uh/n8I2EAD1AIKqvDj2OoTdYsbvjpDuE80sQ2Yu9 srMWV1yLWHLPVOx7og9V2PKhCS1t1M5w/OB4ZopgolKXuRpzdiaWiBz2NNQ00VhU/IWV 8iWiaa0ftn/VPB0fBTA9IkBqu9T4Zu5xCxzfb30Ls768Ul7i0mHvI2KkqWqGaEkZt9+k J2kWV5vxfsdoPfrE0LainZwLVs4Zl7uwSg72P8QPGMnkroKO3yM8OaLr5y4GOEHGxjCo OQ9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWq2VBpuwJdkKSA7FuhuM36Erzel00wamugVwlTqEeg7HXBdpE9RbEO6+odzZ2vWjg6aT56ZbAH2vavew== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.159.38.196 with SMTP id 62mr6728112uay.29.1461954261781; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.7.67 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:24:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <572352A3.6030400@6wind.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 13:24:21 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jay Rolette To: Don Provan Cc: Olivier Matz , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Helin" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , John Daley Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:24:22 -0000 On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Don Provan wrote: > >From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com] > >Subject: [dpdk-dev] removing mbuf error flags > > > >My opinion is that invalid packets should not be given to the applicatio= n > and only a statistic counter should be incremented. > > The idea of an application that handles bad packets is perfectly valid. > Most applications don't want to see them, of course, but, conceptually, > some applications would want to ask for bad packets because they are > specifically designed to handle various networking problems including tho= se > that result in bad packets that the application can look at and report. > Furthermore, it makes technical sense for DPDK to support such applicatio= ns. > > Having said that, I have no idea if that's why that field was added, and = I > don=E2=80=99t myself care if DPDK provides that feature in the future. I = just > thought I'd put the idea out there in case it makes any difference to you= . > If it were me, I'd probably decide it isn't hurting anything and not both= er > to remove it in case some day someone wants to implement that feature in > one driver or another. > Yep. Pretty much any networking security product needs to see malformed packets. Jay