netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] e1000e: Support for byte queue limits

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:04:38 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Cc:	"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 06/10] e1000e: Support for byte queue limits

> whats wrong with using total_tx_bytes or buffer_info->bytecount?  it
> contains the "bytes on the wire" value which will be slightly larger
> than skb->len, but avoids warming the skb->len cacheline unnecessarily.
>

This makes sense.  I made the changes, but the limits computed are
much higher than with using sbk->len.  I suspect there may be a bug in
GSO path.

For instance, in the driver at:

  bytecount = ((segs - 1) * skb_headlen(skb)) + skb->len;

I see cases like:

  segs=34, skb_header_len(skb)=70, skb->len=49298 so bytecount=51608

Which seems reasonable... but, I also see things like:

  segs=45, skb_header_len(skb)=1522, skb->len=65226, so bytecount= 132194
                                                      ^^^^
Which doesn't seem right at all.  I am thinking there may be a bug
setting skb->data_len improperly.

Tom
--
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