linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2.6.36] vlan: Avoid hwaccel vlan packets when vid not used

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: <20110113012157.GA28147@mcarlson.broadcom.com>
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:21:58 -0800
From:	"Matt Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com>
To:	"Jesse Gross" <jesse@...ira.com>
cc:	"Matthew Carlson" <mcarlson@...adcom.com>,
	"Michael Leun" <lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net>,
	"Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Ben Greear" <greearb@...delatech.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.36] vlan: Avoid hwaccel vlan packets when vid
 not used

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 08:36:27PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Matt Carlson <mcarlson@...adcom.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 07:38:00PM -0800, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Michael Leun
> >> <lkml20101129@...ton.leun.net> wrote:
> >> > OK - all tests done on that DL320G5:
> >> >
> >> > For completeness, 2.6.37-rc5 unpatched:
> >> >
> >> > eth0, no vlan configured: totally broken - see double tagged vlans
> >> > without tag, single or untagged packets missing at all
> >>
> >> Random behavior? ?This one is somewhat hard to explain - maybe there
> >> are some other factors. ?eth0 has ASF on, so it always strips tags. ?I
> >> would expect it to behave like the vlan configured case.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > eth0, vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged
> >> > packets with one vlan tag)
> >>
> >> Both ASF and vlan group configured cause tag stripping to be enabled.
> >> Missing tag.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > eth1 same as originally reported:
> >> > without vlan configured see vlan tags (single and double tagged as
> >> > expected)
> >>
> >> No ASF and no vlan group means tag stripping is disabled. ?Have tag.
> >>
> >> > with vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged
> >> > packets with one vlan tag)
> >>
> >> Configuring vlan group causes stripping to be enabled. ?Missing tag.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2.6.37-rc5, your tg3 use new vlan-code patch:
> >> >
> >> > eth0, no vlan configured: ?see packets without vlan tag (see double
> >> > tagged packets with one vlan tag)
> >>
> >> ASF enables tag stripping. ?Missing tag.
> >>
> >> > eth1, no vlan configured: see vlan tags (single and double tagged as
> >> > expected)
> >>
> >> No ASF, no vlan group means no stripping. ?Have tag.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > eth0, vlan configured: as without vlan
> >>
> >> ASF enables stripping. ?Missing tag.
> >>
> >> > eth1, vlan configured: as without vlan
> >>
> >> With this patch vlan stripping is only enabled when ASF is on, so no
> >> stripping. ?Have tag.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 2.6.37-rc5, your tg3 use new vlan-code patch with test patch ontop
> >> >
> >> > eth1 no vlan configured: see packets without vlan tag (see double tagged
> >> > packets with one vlan tag)
> >>
> >> With the second patch, vlan stripping is always enabled. ?Missing tag.
> >>
> >> > eth1 with vlan: the same
> >>
> >> Stripping still always enabled. ?Missing tag.
> >>
> >> The bottom line is whenever vlan stripping is enabled we're missing
> >> the outer tag. ?It might be worth adding some debugging in the area
> >> before napi_gro_receive/vlan_gro_receive (depending on version). ?My
> >> guess is that (desc->type_flags & RXD_FLAG_VLAN) is false even for
> >> vlan packets on this NIC.
> >>
> >> You said that everything works on the 5752? ?Matt, is it possible that
> >> the 5714 either has a problem with vlan stripping or a different way
> >> of reporting it?
> >
> > I don't think this is a 5714 specific issue. ?I think the problem is
> > rooted in the fact that the VLAN tag stripping is enabled.
> 
> It's definitely related to vlan stripping being enabled.  Other cards
> using tg3 seem to work fine with stripping though, which is why I
> thought it might be specific to the 5714.

I just tested this on a 5714S, using a net-next-2.6 snapshot obtained
today.  It does the right thing in both cases (2nd tg3 patch ommited /
applied).  The tag is always visible in the packet stream as seen from
tcpdump.

> > Your RXD_FLAG_VLAN idea sounds unlikely to me, but it's worth a check.
> >
> > The patch here is using __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag(), which informs the
> > stack a VLAN tag is present. ?If this is indeed a reporting problem, I'm
> > not sure what else the driver should be doing.
> 
> The code to hand off the tag to the stack looks OK to me.  Michael was
> seeing this on older versions of the kernel as well with this NIC,
> which predates both this patch and the larger vlan changes so it
> doesn't seem like a problem with passing the tag to the network stack.
>  It's hard to know exactly what is going on though without seeing what
> the hardware is reporting.

When RX_MODE_KEEP_VLAN_TAG is set, the RXD_FLAG_VLAN flag will not be set
when receiving a packet.  The driver skips the __vlan_hwaccel_put_tag()
call.

When RX_MODE_KEEP_VLAN_TAG is unset, the RXD_FLAG_VLAN flag is set, and
__vlan_hwaccel_put_tag() is called to reinject the packet.

--
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/