linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] nvme-tcp: rate limit error message in send path

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d944d241-cc33-460b-9975-e8b68eecefac@grimberg.me>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 10:09:08 +0200
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
Cc: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...nel.org>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
 James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
 linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nvme-tcp: rate limit error message in send path




On 31/01/2025 9:29, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 04:25:35PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 07:05:34AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 05:34:46PM +0100, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>>> If a lot of request are in the queue, this message is spamming the logs,
>>>> thus rate limit it.
>>> Are in the queue when what happens?  Not that I'm against this,
>>> but if we have a known condition where this error is printed a lot
>>> we should probably skip it entirely for that?
>> The condition is that all the elements in the queue->send_list could fail as a
>> batch. I had a bug in my patches which re-queued all the failed command
>> immediately and semd them out again, thus spamming the log.
>>
>> This behavior doesn't exist in upstream. I just thought it might make
>> sense to rate limit as precaution. I don't know if it is worth the code
>> churn.
> I'm fine with the rate limiting.  I was just wondering if there is
> a case where we'd easily hit it and could do even better.

I agree with the change. The reason why I think its useful to keep is 
because its
has been really useful indication when debugging UAF panics.