netdev - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netfront: pull on receive skb may need to happen earlier

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: <20130710100416.GL19798@zion.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:04:16 +0100
From:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Dion Kant <g.w.kant@...enet.nl>, <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen-netfront: pull on receive skb may need
 to happen earlier

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:58:06AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.07.13 at 18:51, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:52:31AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 08.07.13 at 17:48, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:20:26PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> @@ -1014,7 +1025,7 @@ err:
> >> >>  
> >> >>  		skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0].page_offset = rx->offset;
> >> >>  		skb_frag_size_set(&skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0], rx->status);
> >> >> -		skb->data_len = rx->status;
> >> >> +		skb->len = skb->data_len = rx->status;
> >> > 
> >> > This is not correct. You should not be needing this. Now you lose count
> >> > of SKB head len. Try to go without the above line and see if it makes a
> >> > difference?
> >> 
> >> I don't follow - at this point, there's 0 bytes of head (this only
> >> changes with the first call to __pskb_pull_tail()). Hence ->len ==
> >> ->data_len seems correct to me (and afaict pulling would do the
> >> wrong thing if I dropped that change).
> >> 
> > 
> > My bad, I suggested the wrong thing. :-(
> > 
> > But I would prefer skb->len += skb->data_len. In the case that skb->len
> > == 0 it's the same as your line while skb->len is not zero it would also
> > do the right thing.
> 
> I can do that, albeit I don't see how ->len could end up non-zero
> here.
> 
> > As for the warning in skb_try_coalesce, I don't see any direct call to
> > it in netfront, I will need to think about it. It looks like it's really
> > something very deep in the stack.
> 
> Yes, as the call stack provided by Dion proves. The question
> really is whether the patch somehow results in ->truesize to be
> incorrect, or whether - as Eric points out - this is "normal" for
> the sort of special SKBs here (having a rather small headlen). If
> what he says is applicable here, it may hint at the pulling we do
> still not being sufficient for the full TCP header to be in the linear

__netdev_alloc_skb in netfront is fed with RX_COPY_THRESHOLD+NET_IP_ALIGN.
RX_COPY_THRESHOLD is 256 while MAX_TCP_HEADER can be as larger as 256+48
depending on kernel configurations.

> part (which iirc is the main [if not the only purpose] of us doing
> the pull in the first place).
> 

Ian, any comment on this?

Jan, looking at the commit log, the overrun issue in
xennet_get_responses was not introduced by __pskb_pull_tail. The call to
xennet_fill_frags has always been in the same place.

Now I start to think about the purpose of "max = MAX_SKB_FRAGS +
(rx->status <= RX_COPY_THRESHOLD)" in xennet_get_responses which queues
up to MAX_SKB_FRAGS+1 responeses. I'm not clear about the rationale
of that line.


Wei.

> Jan
--
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