netdev - Re: [Patch 2/2] mlx4: add dynamic LRO disable support

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, 15 Jun 2010 16:53:27 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>
CC:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	herbert.xu@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [Patch 2/2] mlx4: add dynamic LRO disable support

On 06/09/10 18:49, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> Hi Amerigo
>
> Sorry for being silent in this thread before.
>
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 05:23:35PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>>> Is that flag test actually unsafe - and if so, how is testing num_lro
>>>>> any better?  Perhaps access to net_device::features should be wrapped
>>>>> with ACCESS_ONCE() to ensure that reads and writes are atomic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At least, I don't find there is any race with 'num_lro', thus
>>>> no lock is needed.
>>>
>>> In both cases there is a race condition but it is harmless so long as
>>> the read and the write are atomic.  There is a general assumption in
>>> networking code that this is the case for int and long.  Personally I
>>> would prefer to see this made explicit using ACCESS_ONCE(), but I don't
>>> see any specific problem in mlx4 (not that I'm familiar with this driver
>>> either).
>>
>> I read this email again.
>>
>> I think you misunderstood the race condition here. Even read and write
>> are atomic here, the race still exists. One can just set NETIF_F_LRO
>> asynchronously right before mlx4 check this flag in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq()
>> which doesn't take rtnl_lock.
>
> If so, it's better to stop device before modify LRO settings. I suggest
> something like that in mlx4_ethtool_op_set_flags:
>
> if (!!(data&  ETH_FLAG_LRO) != !!(dev->features&  NETIF_F_LRO)) {


What does this line mean? This is to ignore all other flags, right?

> 	/* Need to toggle LRO */
>
> 	if (netdev_running(dev)) {
>                 mutex_lock(&mdev->state_lock);
>                 mlx4_en_stop_port(dev);
>                 rc = mlx4_en_start_port(dev);
>                 if (rc)
>                         en_err(priv, "Failed to restart port\n");
> 	}
>
> 	dev->features ^= NETIF_F_LRO;
>
> 	if (netdev_running(dev))
>                 mutex_unlock(&mdev->state_lock);
> }
>

I don't think mdev->state_lock is used to protect dev->feature.
rtnl_lock is. I think switching to mlx4_ethtool_op_set_flags()
from the default one has already solved this.

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html