linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 01/19] staging: qlge: fix incorrect truesize accounting

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:   Tue, 22 Jun 2021 19:36:49 +0800
From:   Coiby Xu <coiby.xu@...il.com>
To:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Benjamin Poirier <benjamin.poirier@...il.com>,
        Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>,
        Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>,
        "supporter:QLOGIC QLGE 10Gb ETHERNET DRIVER" 
        <GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 01/19] staging: qlge: fix incorrect truesize accounting

On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 05:10:27PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 09:48:44PM +0800, Coiby Xu wrote:
>> Commit 7c734359d3504c869132166d159c7f0649f0ab34 ("qlge: Size RX buffers
>> based on MTU") introduced page_chunk structure. We should add
>> qdev->lbq_buf_size to skb->truesize after __skb_fill_page_desc.
>>
>
>Add a Fixes tag.

I will fix it in next version, thanks!

>
>The runtime impact of this is just that ethtool will report things
>incorrectly, right?  It's not 100% from the commit message.  Could you
>please edit the commit message so that an ignoramous like myself can
>understand it?

I'm not sure how it would affect ethtool. But according to "git log
--grep=truesize", it affects coalescing SKBs. Btw, I fixed the issue
according to the definition of truesize which according to Linux Kernel
Network by Rami Rosen, it's defined as follows,
> The total memory allocated for the SKB (including the SKB structure itself 
> and the size of the allocated data block).

I'll edit the commit message to include it, thanks!

>
>Why is this an RFC instead of just a normal patch which we can apply?

After doing the tests mentioned in the cover letter, I found Red Hat's 
network QE team has quite a rigorous test suite. But I needed to return 
the machine before having the time to learn about the test suite and run 
it by myself. So I mark it as an RFC before I borrow the machine again to 
run the test suite.

>
>regards,
>dan carpenter
>

-- 
Best regards,
Coiby