netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2 net-next][v2] bonding: fix incorrect transmit queue offset

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:37:51 -0800
From:	Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To:	Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com>
cc:	Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 net-next][v2] bonding: fix incorrect transmit queue offset

Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:31:36AM -0500, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
>> > The patch works as expected.  Do we have any agreement on a final version?
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for the testing, Phil.
>>
>> I'm in favor of this patch as it does alert the admin that bonding may
>> not have enough default queues, but it is not as verbose (backtrace et
>> al) and likely to create bug reports as a message from WARN_ON.
>> +             if (net_ratelimit())
>> +                     pr_warning("%s selects invalid tx queue %d.  Consider"
>> +                                " setting module option tx_queues > %d.",
>> +                                dev->name, txq, dev->real_num_tx_queues);
>
>It is unclear why we need to alert the admin to this situation (repeatedly).  
>Say the incoming nic has 32 queues, and is headed out a bond (with 16).
>With your patch, we will log 50% of the time, no?  What benefit is this
>log spew?
>
>While WARN_ONCE may be a bit extreme due to the backtrace, perhaps we
>should at least throw a 'static bool warned' variable in there to lessen
>the nuisance?

	I'm also concerned that the log messages will be excessive.

	Should we instead create a bonding driver-private ethtool
statistics and count these events that way?

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
--
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