[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAsGZS5vvmb_qX+cG507=hU_+kwnowEEojXGNMt5ShEZ9+ZeAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:53:26 -0400
From: chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com, joe@...ches.com,
bhutchings@...arflare.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next af-packet 1/2] Enhance af-packet to provide
(near zero)lossless packet capture functionality.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:36 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Chetan Loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:10:49 -0400
>
>> +struct bd_v1 {
> -
>> + __u32 block_status;
>> + __u32 num_pkts;
>> + __u32 offset_to_first_pkt;
> -
>> + __u32 blk_len;
> -
>> + __u64 seq_num;
> ...
>> + union {
>> + struct {
>> + __u32 words[4];
>> + __u64 dword;
>> + } __attribute__ ((__packed__));
>> + struct bd_v1 bd1;
> ...
>> +#define BLOCK_STATUS(x) ((x)->words[0])
>> +#define BLOCK_NUM_PKTS(x) ((x)->words[1])
>> +#define BLOCK_O2FP(x) ((x)->words[2])
>> +#define BLOCK_LEN(x) ((x)->words[3])
>> +#define BLOCK_SNUM(x) ((x)->dword)
>
Sorry, I was out on the long weekend. So couldn't get to this sooner.
> This BLOCK_SNUM definition is buggy. It modifies the
> first 64-bit word in the block descriptor.
>
> But the sequence number lives 16 bytes into the descriptor.
hmm? the words/dword are enveloped within a 'struct'. Can you please
double check?
>
> This value is only written to once and never used by anything.
> I would just remove it entirely.
>
It is used by the applications. Look at the code comments:
/*
* Quite a few uses of sequence number:
* 1. Make sure cache flush etc worked.
* Well, one can argue - why not use the increasing ts below?
* But look at 2. below first.
* 2. When you pass around blocks to other user space decoders,
* you can see which blk[s] is[are] outstanding etc.
* 3. Validate kernel code.
*/
> Next, having this overlay thing is entirely pointless. Just refer to
It is useful.
Also, future versions of the block-descriptor can append a new field.
When that happens,
none of the code needs to worry about the version etc for the unchanged fields.
Look at setsockopt - I had to add an 'union' and pass that around to
avoid minimal code churn.
So the overlay may not be pointless.
> the block descriptor members directly! You certainly wouldn't have
> had this sequence number bug if you had done that.
>
Look at the sample app posted on:
git://lolpcap.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/lolpcap/lolpcap
function - void validate_blk_seq_num(struct block_desc *pbd)
This function validates the block_sequence_number (which is
incremented sequentially).
The application attempts to validate the entire block layout.
Chetan Loke
--
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