[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BC4A139.3010605@siemens.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:52:09 +0200
From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>,
Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>,
David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tun: orphan an skb on tx
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 17:36 +0200, Jan Kiszka a écrit :
>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> The following situation was observed in the field:
>>> tap1 sends packets, tap2 does not consume them, as a result
>>> tap1 can not be closed.
>> And before that, tap1 may not be able to send further packets to anyone
>> else on the bridge as its TX resources were blocked by tap2 - that's
>> what we saw in the field.
>>
>
> After the patch, tap1 is able to flood tap2, and tap3/tap4 not able to
> send one single frame. Is it OK ?
I think if that's a real issue, you have to apply traffic shaping to the
untrusted nodes. The existing flow-control scheme was fragile anyway as
you had to translate packet lengths on TX side to packet counts on RX.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
--
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