On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 09:01:29PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 07:23:23PM +0200, Quentin Garnier wrote: > > The NIC might have simply truncated it. I'm pretty sure I've seen it > > happen in that context, without specific notification to the driver. > [..] > > My initial implementation was smarter because it let the NIC driver > > confirm it is able and willing to receive such frames. > > Wouldn't it bet better to have the driver detect this (if possible) and > not pass the frame to ether_input at all? If the hardware does not tell > the driver, it should still know the maximum size and do this check > better. How can the driver tell if a frame was truncated or not, if the hardware doesn't indicate it? I'm pretty sure I saw it with sip(4), but it might have been another. > I don't see how the ethertype relates to this check - if at all the vlan > or jumbo frame capabilities of the NIC should count. It relates because the check is about whether or not the system *should* have received such a packet, not whether or not it was able to (rather obviously it was able to receive it). That said, I'm all in favour of dropping the check completely. -- Quentin Garnier - cube%cubidou.net@localhost - cube%NetBSD.org@localhost "See the look on my face from staying too long in one place [...] every time the morning breaks I know I'm closer to falling" KT Tunstall, Saving My Face, Drastic Fantastic, 2007.
Description: PGP signature