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: <47F0B66C.6080404@cosmosbay.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:01:16 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of	netif_rx()

Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> I noticed some paths in kernel are very stack aggressive, and on i386 
>> with CONFIG_4KSTACKS we were really in a dangerous land, even without 
>> my patch.
>>
>> What we call 4K stacks is in fact 4K - sizeof(struct task_struct), so 
>> a litle bit more than 2K. [...]
>>     
>
> that's just wrong - 4K stacks on x86 are 4K-sizeof(thread_info) - the 
> task struct is allocated elsewhere. The patch below runs just fine on 
> 4K-stack x86.
>
>   
Yes, this error was corrected by Andi already :)

Thank you Ingo but this patch was already suggested by me previously ( 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=120361996713007&w=2 ) and was 
rejected, since we can very easily consume all stack space, especially 
with 4K stacks.
(try with NFS mounts and XFS for example)



Only safe way is to check available free stack space, since we can nest  
loopback_xmit() several time.
In case of protocol errors (like in TCP, if we answer to an ACK by 
another ACK, or ICMP loops), we would exhaust stack instead of delaying 
packets for next softirq run.

Problem is to check available space :

It depends on stack growing UP or DOWN, and depends on caller running on 
process stack, or softirq stack, or even hardirq stack.




> 	Ingo
>
> ------------->
> Subject: net: loopback speedup
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date: Mon Mar 31 11:23:21 CEST 2008
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> ---
>  drivers/net/loopback.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux/drivers/net/loopback.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/drivers/net/loopback.c
> +++ linux/drivers/net/loopback.c
> @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ static int loopback_xmit(struct sk_buff 
>  	lb_stats->bytes += skb->len;
>  	lb_stats->packets++;
>  
> -	netif_rx(skb);
> +	netif_receive_skb(skb);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>
>   




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ