netdev - Re: [patch] pktgen: bug when calling ndelay in x86 architectures

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]

Message-ID: <1319144138.2854.33.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:55:38 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	bhutchings@...arflare.com, daniel.turull@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, robert@...julf.net, voravit@....se,
	jens.laas@...m.uu.se
Subject: Re: [patch] pktgen: bug when calling ndelay in x86 architectures

Le jeudi 20 octobre 2011 à 16:24 -0400, David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:47:44 +0200
> 
> > Le mardi 18 octobre 2011 à 15:00 +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> > 
> >> AIUI, the reason for limits on delays is not that it's bad practice to
> >> spin for so long, but that the delay calculations may overflow or
> >> otherwise become inaccurate.
> > 
> > OK, I can understand that, then a more appropriate patch would be :
> 
> I think doing the udelay/ndelay thing is the way to go for 'net' and
> -stable.  We can do something sophisticated with ktime et al. in
> 'net-next'.
> 

Well, I am not sure a patch is needed for net, since there is no bug,
but maybe small inaccuracies ? Correct me if I misunderstood Daniel !

> Eric, could you please formally submit this patch with proper
> changelog etc.?

Sure !

[PATCH net-next] pktgen: remove ndelay() call

Daniel Turull reported inaccuracies in pktgen when using low packet
rates, because we call ndelay(val) with values bigger than 20000.

Instead of calling ndelay() for delays < 100us, we can instead loop
calling ktime_now() only.

Reported-by: Daniel Turull <daniel.turull@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
---
 net/core/pktgen.c |   11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/pktgen.c b/net/core/pktgen.c
index 6bbf008..0001c24 100644
--- a/net/core/pktgen.c
+++ b/net/core/pktgen.c
@@ -2145,9 +2145,12 @@ static void spin(struct pktgen_dev *pkt_dev, ktime_t spin_until)
 	}
 
 	start_time = ktime_now();
-	if (remaining < 100000)
-		ndelay(remaining);	/* really small just spin */
-	else {
+	if (remaining < 100000) {
+		/* for small delays (<100us), just loop until limit is reached */
+		do {
+			end_time = ktime_now();
+		} while (ktime_lt(end_time, spin_until));
+	} else {
 		/* see do_nanosleep */
 		hrtimer_init_sleeper(&t, current);
 		do {
@@ -2162,8 +2165,8 @@ static void spin(struct pktgen_dev *pkt_dev, ktime_t spin_until)
 			hrtimer_cancel(&t.timer);
 		} while (t.task && pkt_dev->running && !signal_pending(current));
 		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+		end_time = ktime_now();
 	}
-	end_time = ktime_now();
 
 	pkt_dev->idle_acc += ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(end_time, start_time));
 	pkt_dev->next_tx = ktime_add_ns(spin_until, pkt_dev->delay);


--
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