[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DACAC7E.4070400@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 17:26:22 -0400
From: John Lumby <johnlumby@...mail.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
CC: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>, nic_swsd@...ltek.com
Subject: Re: r8169 : always copying the rx buffer to new skb
On 04/18/11 13:27, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> At least some variants of the hardware have a bug [...] avoid allocation failures later on (and
> to save memory) the buffers must be copied rather than passed up the
> stack and reallocated.
Yes, I can see that the always-copy method eliminates all possibility
of an allocation failure, but an *occasional* allocation failure does
no harm - the driver just retains ownership of that descriptor and
tries again on the next rx_interrupt. With a rx ring of N buffers,
it would take something like N-(small_number) consecutive allocation
failures to cause a failure to be exposed up to the application.
That's the way the code used to work and the way I've re-patched it to
work and I've verified that on my 8168c by simulating an allocation
failure on 15 out of every 16 rx-Interrupts (unhooking the current skb
and then simply not allocating a new skb and not giving the
corresponding descriptor to the asic) and everything works just fine,
with just a slight drop in throughput (down to 987 Mbits/sec, still
well ahead of the always-copy).
So do we really need to be that concerned about occasional allocation
failure?
And if someone is that concerned, then, with my proposal, they can
leave the rx_copybreak at its default of 16383, when every packet is
copied anyway. (My patch takes a slightly different approach if the
allocation of the new skb fails - current 2.6.39 drops the packet,
I would propose to unhook and retain the descriptor because I can
replenish later - but that is also debatable). Also that's why I
favour making the rx ring size configurable.
On 04/18/11 14:21, Francois Romieu wrote:
> Short answer: it's mostly related to CVE-2009-4537 (see git log).
I understand the need to make the rx_buf_size 16383 to defeat the DOS
attacker, no suggestion to alter that. I'm just not sure I see why
that has to imply the always_copy.
> I may resurrect some alternate fix - i.e. detect corrupted Tx descriptors
> and reset before things gets wrong - but it is not easy to prove it right
> since it may be necessary to tailor it for each member of the 816x / 810x
> family. Some input from Realtek may help though.
>
Yes, more input the better, and especially I recognize that I have
tested only my RTL8168c and maybe other models behave differently.
On 04/18/11 13:27, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> the number of rx buffers allocated at open should be configurable by
>> module param.
> [...]
>
> No, it should implement the ethtool set_ringparam operation.
>
Ah ok thanks. I'll take a look at that.
John Lumby
--
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