linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: ksz: fix padding size of skb

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:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 21:13:19 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>,
        Woojung Huh <woojung.huh@...rochip.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: dsa: ksz: fix padding size of skb

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 11:03:11AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 18:56:45 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > 3. "Manually" unsharing in dsa_slave_xmit(), reserving enough tailroom
> > > for the tail tag (and ETH_ZLEN?). Would moving the "else" clause from
> > > ksz_common_xmit()  to dsa_slave_xmit() do the job correctly?  
> > 
> > I was thinking about something like that, indeed. DSA knows everything
> > about the tagger: its overhead, whether it's a tail tag or not. The xmit
> > callback of the tagger should only be there to populate the tag where it
> > needs to be. But reallocation, padding, etc etc, should all be dealt
> > with by the common DSA xmit procedure. We want the taggers to be simple
> > and reuse as much logic as possible, not to be bloated.
> 
> FWIW if you want to avoid the reallocs you may want to set
> needed_tailroom on the netdev.

Tell me more about that, I've been meaning since forever to try it out.
I read about needed_headroom and needed_tailroom, and it's one of the
reasons why I added the .tail_tag option in the DSA tagger (to
distinguish whether a switch needs headroom or tailroom), but I can't
figure out, just from static analysis of the code, where exactly is the
needed tailroom being accounted for. For example, if I'm in Christian's
situation, e.g. I have a packet smaller than ETH_ZLEN, would the
tailroom be enough to hold just the dev->needed_tailroom, or would there
be enough space in the skb for the entire ETH_ZLEN + dev->needed_tailroom?