netdev - Re: [PATCH net,v2] net: sock: adapt SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF and SOCK_MIN

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:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:19:15 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net,v2] net: sock: adapt SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF and
 SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF

On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 12:51 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> The current situation is that SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF is 2048 + sizeof(struct sk_buff))
> while SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF is 2048. Since in both cases, skb->truesize is used for
> sk_{r,w}mem_alloc accounting, we should have both sizes adjusted via defining a
> TCP_SKB_MIN_TRUESIZE.
> 
> Further, as Eric Dumazet points out, the minimal skb truesize in transmit path is
> SKB_TRUESIZE(2048) after commit f07d960df33c5 ("tcp: avoid frag allocation for
> small frames"), and tcp_sendmsg() tries to limit skb size to half the congestion
> window, meaning we try to build two skbs at minimum. Thus, having SOCK_MIN_SNDBUF
> as 2048 can hit a small regression for some applications setting to low
> SO_SNDBUF / SO_RCVBUF. Note that we define a TCP_SKB_MIN_TRUESIZE, because
> SKB_TRUESIZE(2048) adds SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)), but in
> case of TCP skbs, the skb_shared_info is part of the 2048 bytes allocation for
> skb->head.
> 
> The minor adaption in sk_stream_moderate_sndbuf() is to silence a warning by
> using a typed max macro, as similarly done in SOCK_MIN_RCVBUF occurences, that
> would appear otherwise.
> 
> Suggested-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
> ---
>  v1 -> v2:
>   - Applied Eric's feedback, fixed up commit message
>   - Set subject to 'net' instead of 'net-next' due to the reported regression

I am fine with this patch (I already run it as a matter of fact), but
I think its net-next material :
Regression is not new, and concerns very pathological cases, where
applications relied on some non documented behavior of network stack.

Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>


--
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