[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99737F4847ED0A48AECC9F4A1974A4B80F86F80270@MNEXMB2.qlogic.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 03:19:21 -0500
From: Amit Salecha <amit.salecha@...gic.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: "eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Ameen Rahman <ameen.rahman@...gic.com>,
Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] qlcnic: dont assume NET_IP_ALIGN is 2
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 9:29 PM
> To: Amit Salecha
> Cc: eric.dumazet@...il.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Ameen Rahman;
> Anirban Chakraborty
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] qlcnic: dont assume NET_IP_ALIGN is 2
>
> From: Amit Salecha <amit.salecha@...gic.com>
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:16:31 -0500
>
> > Though I have one doubt. We are allocating larger packets than the
> actual data used.
> > Doesn't it will break accounting ?
>
> No, it will "fix" accounting.
>
> You must charge to the SKB all of the non-shared memory that was
> allocated to the SKB.
>
> This means even if the packet only uses 128 bytes of the SKB
> data area, you must still account for the full blob of linear
> memory that was allocated for the SKB data area in skb->truesize.
>
> Otherwise remote attackers could consume enormous amounts of memory by
> tricking our socket accounting via carefully sized packets.
Wont this affect throughput ?
As problem discuss in this thread http://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg06848.html, it can affect tcp window scaling.
-Amit
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists