On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 4:04 PM Paolo Abeni [off-list ref] wrote:

On 6/12/25 6:55 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 6, 2025 at 7:46 PM Paolo Abeni [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/if_tun.h b/include/uapi/linux/if_tun.h
index 287cdc81c939..79d53c7a1ebd 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/if_tun.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/if_tun.h

@@ -93,6 +93,15 @@
 #define TUN_F_USO4     0x20    /* I can handle USO for IPv4 packets */
 #define TUN_F_USO6     0x40    /* I can handle USO for IPv6 packets */

+/* I can handle TSO/USO for UDP tunneled packets */
+#define TUN_F_UDP_TUNNEL_GSO           0x080
+
+/*
+ * I can handle TSO/USO for UDP tunneled packets requiring csum offload for
+ * the outer header
+ */
+#define TUN_F_UDP_TUNNEL_GSO_CSUM      0x100
+

Any reason we don't choose to use 0x40 and 0x60?

I just noticed I forgot to answer this one, I'm sorry.

0x40 is already in use (for TUN_F_USO6, as you can see above), and 0x60
is a bitmask, not a single bit. I used the lowest available free bits.

You are right.

Thanks

/P