[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b08e2dc3e0694068a1a9d698475f8992@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 14:53:49 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'David Ahern' <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
CC: "menglong8.dong@...il.com" <menglong8.dong@...il.com>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "xeb@...l.ru" <xeb@...l.ru>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"imagedong@...cent.com" <imagedong@...cent.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kafai@...com" <kafai@...com>,
"talalahmad@...gle.com" <talalahmad@...gle.com>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"alobakin@...me" <alobakin@...me>,
"flyingpeng@...cent.com" <flyingpeng@...cent.com>,
"mengensun@...cent.com" <mengensun@...cent.com>,
"dongli.zhang@...cle.com" <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"benbjiang@...cent.com" <benbjiang@...cent.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v3 3/3] net: icmp: add reasons of the skb drops
to icmp protocol
From: David Ahern
> Sent: 17 March 2022 14:49
>
> On 3/16/22 10:05 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 21:35:47 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
> >> On 3/16/22 9:18 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I guess this set raises the follow up question to Dave if adding
> >>> drop reasons to places with MIB exception stats means improving
> >>> the granularity or one MIB stat == one reason?
> >>
> >> There are a few examples where multiple MIB stats are bumped on a drop,
> >> but the reason code should always be set based on first failure. Did you
> >> mean something else with your question?
> >
> > I meant whether we want to differentiate between TYPE, and BROADCAST or
> > whatever other possible invalid protocol cases we can get here or just
> > dump them all into a single protocol error code.
>
> I think a single one is a good starting point.
I remember looking at (I think) the packet drop stats a while back.
Two machines on the same LAN were reporting rather different values.
Basically 0 v quite a few.
It turned out that passing the packets to dhcp was deemed enough
to stop them being reported as 'dropped'.
And I think that version of dhcp fed every packed into its BPF? filter.
(I never did decide whether that caused every skb to be duplicated.)
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists