linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v4 0/3] Fix large frames in the Gemini ethernet driver

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: <ad66b532d1702c36adecd944e25f84e4497ef8b3.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 09 Nov 2023 13:26:17 +0100
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Hans Ulli Kroll <ulli.kroll@...glemail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 0/3] Fix large frames in the Gemini ethernet
 driver

On Thu, 2023-11-09 at 12:50 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 10:03:11AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > This is the result of a bug hunt for a problem with the
> > RTL8366RB DSA switch leading me wrong all over the place.
> > 
> > I am indebted to Vladimir Oltean who as usual pointed
> > out where the real problem was, many thanks!
> > 
> > Tryig to actually use big ("jumbo") frames on this
> > hardware uncovered the real bugs. Then I tested it on
> > the DSA switch and it indeed fixes the issue.
> > 
> > To make sure it also works fine with big frames on
> > non-DSA devices I also copied a large video file over
> > scp to a device with maximum frame size, the data
> > was transported in large TCP packets ending up in
> > 0x7ff sized frames using software checksumming at
> > ~2.0 MB/s.
> > 
> > If I set down the MTU to the standard 1500 bytes so
> > that hardware checksumming is used, the scp transfer
> > of the same file was slightly lower, ~1.8-1.9 MB/s.
> > 
> > Despite this not being the best test it shows that
> > we can now stress the hardware with large frames
> > and that software checksum works fine.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
> > ---
> 
> Thanks for being persistent with this! I hope we didn't miss today's
> "net" pull request :)

I fear this is a bit too late for today's PR. I hope it should not be a
big problem, since we are very early in the release cycle.

Cheers,

Paolo