linux-kernel - Re: problems with e1000 and jumboframes

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

Message-id: <44D23BC3.7040707@arndnet.de>
Date:	Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:09:07 +0200
From:	Arnd Hannemann <arnd@...dnet.de>
To:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, olel@....pl
Subject: Re: problems with e1000 and jumboframes

Evgeniy Polyakov schrieb:
> On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 07:16:31PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov (johnpol@....mipt.ru) wrote:
>>>> then skb_alloc adds a little
>>>> (sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) at the end, and this ends up
>>>> in 32k request just for 9k jumbo frame.
>>> Strange, why this skb_shared_info cannon be added before first alignment? 
>>> And what about smaller frames like 1500, does this driver behave similar 
>>> (first align then add)?
>> It can be.
>> Could attached  (completely untested) patch help?
> 
> Actually this patch will not help, this new one could.
> 

I applied the attached pachted. And got this output:

> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 13762
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16058
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15894
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15730
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15566
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15402
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15238
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15074
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14910
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14746
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14582
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14418
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14254
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14090
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 13926
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 13762
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16058
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15894
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15730
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15566
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15402
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15238
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 15074
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14910
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14746
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14582
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 14418
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222
> Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Driver - bufsz 16222

I'm a bit puzzled that there are so much allocations. However the patch
seems to work. (at least not obviously breaks things for me yet)

Best regards
Arnd


View attachment "patch.txt" of type "text/plain" (662 bytes)