netdev - Re: ICMP packets - ll_temac with Microblaze

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:01:42 +0800
From:	Jun Zhao <mypopydev@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	monstr@...str.eu, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	John Williams <john.williams@...alogix.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ICMP packets - ll_temac with Microblaze

On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 16:44 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 décembre 2011 à 16:30 +0100, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > Le mercredi 21 décembre 2011 à 15:24 +0100, Michal Simek a écrit :
> > > Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > Le mercredi 21 décembre 2011 à 14:28 +0100, Michal Simek a écrit :
> > > > 
> > > >> ok. Can you provide me any background why size should be setup by
> > > >> size = SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(ksize(data));
> > > >> and not to use size which is passed to kmalloc in __alloc_skb.
> > > > 
> > > > Its all about memory accounting (based on skb->truesize)
> > > > 
> > > > Prior to the patch, we could fool memory accounting because skbs claimed
> > > > to use less memory than what they really used.
> > > > 
> > > > And crash machines eventually.
> > > > 
> > > > Now memory accouting is fixed, we probably need to change some points in
> > > > the kernel, where we previously accepted a small skb, but not a very
> > > > large one.
> > > > 
> > > > Since "ping" probably uses SOCK_RAW sockets, I'll try this one :
> > > > 
> > > > (We dont care of _this_ skb truesize, only on the count of previously
> > > > queued packets)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> > > > index 0da505c..a809a48 100644
> > > > --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
> > > > +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
> > > > @@ -1631,8 +1631,7 @@ static int packet_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> > > >  	if (snaplen > res)
> > > >  		snaplen = res;
> > > >  
> > > > -	if (atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) + skb->truesize >=
> > > > -	    (unsigned)sk->sk_rcvbuf)
> > > > +	if (atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) >= (unsigned)sk->sk_rcvbuf)
> > > >  		goto drop_n_acct;
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (skb_shared(skb)) {
> > > > @@ -1763,7 +1762,7 @@ static int tpacket_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> > > >  	if (po->tp_version <= TPACKET_V2) {
> > > >  		if (macoff + snaplen > po->rx_ring.frame_size) {
> > > >  			if (po->copy_thresh &&
> > > > -				atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) + skb->truesize
> > > > +				atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc)
> > > >  				< (unsigned)sk->sk_rcvbuf) {
> > > >  				if (skb_shared(skb)) {
> > > >  					copy_skb = skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > It doesn't work too.
> > > It is possible to see this behavior on qemu. What about if I prepare you package with cross toolchain, rootfs
> > > and you can add debug message where you want?
> > > 
> > > I have also tried ll_temac driver with ppc440 and behavior is the same.
> > > 
> > > Max FRAME_SIZE pass to netdev_alloc_skb_ip_align is 7966. For this value ping works.
> > > (For ll_temac driver it is #define XTE_JUMBO_MTU 7948 from ll_temac.h)
> > 
> > I did several tests with MTU 9000 on my machines and it works well.
> > 
> > It seems my pings (iputils-sss20071127 or iputils-sss20101006) uses a
> > big enough RCVBUF
> > 
> > setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [65536], 4) = 0
> > getsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [131072], [4]) = 0
> > 
> > Could you check with "strace ping..." what is doing busybox ?
> 
> I found it : Its too small for jumbo frames.
> 
> setsockopt(3, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, [7280], 4) = 0
> 
> networking/ping.c
> 
> 
>         /* set recv buf (needed if we can get lots of responses: flood ping,
>          * broadcast ping etc) */
>         sockopt = (datalen * 2) + 7 * 1024; /* giving it a bit of extra room */
>         setsockopt(pingsock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUF, &sockopt, sizeof(sockopt));
> 
> 
> 
> --

Why receive buffer size MUST bigger than the jumbo frames size even if
the packet size is small?

> 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


--
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