netdev - Re: [net] e1000: Small packets may get corrupted during padding by HW

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]

Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:27:01 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
	tushar.n.dave@...el.com, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
	mirqus@...il.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com, sassmann@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net] e1000: Small packets may get corrupted during padding by
 HW

On 9/17/2012 8:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:01:06 -0700
>
>> Since MAX_TCP_HEADER starts at 160 the likelihood of it not getting
>> at least 16 bytes of padding is pretty low.
> I know it's not on many people's radar, but with SLOB it will happen
> a lot probably.

That is true.  I hadn't thought about anything other than SLAB/SLUB.

It also just occurred to me that there might be some benefit in cache 
aligning the max header size.  It seems like doing something like that 
should reduce the overall memory footprint and would probably improve 
performance.

Thanks,

Alex


--
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