netdev - RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/4] xen-netback: coalesce slots before copying

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: <6035A0D088A63A46850C3988ED045A4B387EC8DC@BITCOM1.int.sbss.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:27:29 +0000
From:	James Harper <james.harper@...digoit.com.au>
To:	James Harper <james.harper@...digoit.com.au>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
CC:	"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>,
	"ian.campbell@...rix.com" <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/4] xen-netback: coalesce slots before
 copying

> >
> > This patch tries to coalesce tx requests when constructing grant copy
> > structures. It enables netback to deal with situation when frontend's
> > MAX_SKB_FRAGS is larger than backend's MAX_SKB_FRAGS.
> >
> > It defines max_skb_slots, which is a estimation of the maximum number of
> > slots
> > a guest can send, anything bigger than that is considered malicious. Now it
> is
> > set to 20, which should be enough to accommodate Linux (16 to 19) and
> > possibly
> > Windows (19?).
> >
> > +/*
> > + * This is an estimation of the maximum possible frags a SKB might
> > + * have, anything larger than this is considered malicious. Typically
> > + * Linux has 16 to 19, Windows has 19(?).
> > + */
> 
> Could you remove the "Windows has 19(?)" comment? I don't think it's
> helpful, even with the "(?)"... I just checked and windows 2008R2 gives
> GPLPV a maximum of 20 buffers in all the testing I've done, and that's after
> the header is coalesced so it's probably more than that. I'm pretty sure I
> tested windows 2003 quite a while back and I could coax it into giving
> ridiculous numbers of buffers when using iperf with tiny buffers.
> 
> Maybe "Windows has >19" if you need to put a number on it?
> 

Actually it turns out GPLPV just stops counting at 20. If I keep counting I can sometimes see over 1000 buffers per GSO packet under Windows using "iperf -l50", so windows will quite happily send 1000's of buffers and I don't have any evidence that it wouldn't cope with a similar number on receive. fwiw.

(of course coalescing vs using 1000 ring slots is an obvious choice...)

James

--
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