[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTin1wAJ9kTJeVbFAzu0D3cJFP1J8V1aiHhXGvaaT@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:24:28 -0700
From: Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] ip_gre: lockless xmit
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le mercredi 29 septembre 2010 à 10:33 -0700, Jesse Gross a écrit :
>
>> The tx lock has another use here: to break local loops. With this
>> change, a misconfigured tunnel can bring down the machine with a stack
>> overflow. There are clearly other ways to fix this that don't require
>> a lock that restricts parallelism, such as a loop counter, but that's
>> the way it is now.
>
> Thats a very good point !
>
> We could use a loop counter in the skb, but this use a bit of ram,
> or percpu counters in tunnel drivers, to avoid a given level of
> recursion.
I agree, a percpu loop counter is the way to go. I implemented
something nearly identical to deal with this problem in Open vSwitch.
There are actually a number of optimizations in the Open vSwitch
tunneling stack that you may be interested in taking a look at as well
(for example, it has had this sort of lockless transmit for a while):
http://openvswitch.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=openvswitch;a=blob;f=datapath/tunnel.c;hb=HEAD
The plan is to upstream all of the kernel code (or at least offer it),
just trying to get the userspace interfaces settled down first.
--
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