lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 08:00:20 -0500 From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netem@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 v4] net: add old_queue_mapping into skb->cb On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 22:03 +0800, Changli Gao wrote: > When I tested it, my OS got frozen. I will look into it the next opportunity i get. The example i showed is on egress btw. A ping from outside that matches the filter will be a good test. > Currently, you can only change the rx queue mapping, because for tx, > dev_pick_tx() doesn't use skb->queue_mapping to choose tx queue. If skbedit is on egress, it will happen after (and override whatever dev_pick_tx() chose), no? Thats the whole point for skbedits queuemap editing. > However, I don't think change the rx queue mapping is a good idea. I agree for that as a default policy. But it is policy that skbedit can and should be able to override. > When the skbs returned from ifb enter netif_receive_skb() again, > get_rps_cpu() may warn about the wrong rx queue, and my this patch is > used to solve this problem. Even though the rx queue is legal, a > different rps_cpus settings will be used, and the skbs may be > redirected to different CPUs. Is it expected? I am not sure without analyzing what performance impact would be, i.e i think that the only reason i wouldnt do it is because it may have crazy effect on performance but: If i wanted to override the choice made by rps through some policy, why shouldnt i be able to do it? Same thing if i wanted to bypass rps. tc level seems appropriate. I may be misreading the code: Quick glance at the code indicates users have no choice on ingress: rps happens first then we can do tc level - so it doesnt matter what changes we make to the queue map it will not take effect in any case. Am i mistaken? cheers, jamal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists