linux-kernel - Re: [igb] netconsole triggers warning in netpoll_poll

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: <20210423081944.kvvm4v7jcdyj74l3@spock.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:19:44 +0200
From:   Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
        Tony Nguyen <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [igb] netconsole triggers warning in netpoll_poll_dev

Hello.

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:06:29PM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 11:07 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 09:25:28 -0700 Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 8:37 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 08:00:53 +0200 Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for the effort, but reportedly [1] it made no difference,
> > > > > unfortunately.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=212573#c8
> > > >
> > > > The only other option I see is that somehow the NAPI has no rings.
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> > > > index a45cd2b416c8..24568adc2fb1 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/intel/igb/igb_main.c
> > > > @@ -7980,7 +7980,7 @@ static int igb_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget)
> > > >         struct igb_q_vector *q_vector = container_of(napi,
> > > >                                                      struct igb_q_vector,
> > > >                                                      napi);
> > > > -       bool clean_complete = true;
> > > > +       bool clean_complete = q_vector->tx.ring || q_vector->rx.ring;
> > > >         int work_done = 0;
> > > >
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_IGB_DCA
> > >
> > > It might make sense to just cast the work_done as a unsigned int, and
> > > then on the end of igb_poll use:
> > >   return min_t(unsigned int, work_done, budget - 1);
> >
> > Sure, that's simplest. I wasn't sure something is supposed to prevent
> > this condition or if it's okay to cover it up.
> 
> I'm pretty sure it is okay to cover it up. In this case the "budget -
> 1" is supposed to be the upper limit on what can be reported. I think
> it was assuming an unsigned value anyway.
> 
> Another alternative would be to default clean_complete to !!budget.
> Then if budget is 0 clean_complete would always return false.

So, among all the variants, which one to try? Or there was a separate
patch sent to address this?

Thanks.

-- 
  Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)