linux-kernel - Re: at91sam9260 MACB problem with IP fragmentation

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]

Date:	Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:17:49 +0100
From:	Erwin Rol <mailinglists@...inrol.com>
To:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Havard Skinnemoen <havard@...nnemoen.net>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	matteo.fortini@...el.it, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: at91sam9260 MACB problem with IP fragmentation

Hallo Nicolas,

On 6-12-2012 14:27, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Erwin,
> 
> On 12/06/2012 12:32 PM, Erwin Rol :
>> Hello Nicolas, Havard, all,
>>
>> I have a very obscure problem with a at91sam9260 board (almost 1 to 1
>> copy of the Atmel EK).
>>
>> The MACB seems to stall when I use large (>2 * MTU) UDP datagrams. The
>> test case is that a udp echo client (PC) sends datagrams with increasing
>> length to the AT91 until the max length of the UDP datagram is reached.
>> When there is no IP fragmentation everything is fine, but when the
>> datagrams are starting to get fragmented the AT91 will not reply
>> anymore. But as soon as some network traffic happens it goes on again,
>> and non of the data is lost.

<snip>

>> I tried several kernels including the test version from Nicolas that he
>> posted on LKML in October. They all show the same effect.
> 
> [..]
> 
> It seems that Matteo has the same behavior: check here:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg218951.html

I tried Matteo's patch and it seems to work. But I don't know if the
patch is really the right solution. I checked again with wireshark and
it really seems the sending that stalls not the receiving. But as soon
as a ethernet frame is received the sending "un-stalls". So maybe the
patch just causes an MACB IRQ at certain moments that causes the sending
to continue?

> I am working on the macb driver right now, so I will try to reproduce
> and track this issue on my side.

Any luck reproducing it ?


- Erwin

--
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/