netdev - Re: DomU's network interface will hung when Dom0 running 32bit

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:	Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:43:29 +0100
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	jianhai luan <jianhai.luan@...cle.com>
CC:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: DomU's network interface will hung when Dom0 running 32bit

On Tue, 2013-10-15 at 10:44 +0800, jianhai luan wrote:
> On 2013-10-14 19:19, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 04:53:18PM +0800, jianhai luan wrote:
> >> Hi Ian,
> >>    I meet the DomU's network interface hung issue recently, and have
> >> been working on the issue from that time. I find that DomU's network
> >> interface, which send lesser package, will hung if Dom0 running
> >> 32bit and DomU's up-time is very long.  I think that one jiffies
> >> overflow bug exist in the function tx_credit_exceeded().
> >>    I know the inline function time_after_eq(a,b) will process jiffies
> >> overflow, but the function have one limit a should little that (b +
> >> MAX_SIGNAL_LONG). If a large than the value, time_after_eq will
> >> return false. The MAX_SINGNAL_LONG should be 0x7fffffff at 32-bit
> >> machine.
> >>    If DomU's network interface send lesser package (<0.5k/s if
> >> jiffies=250 and credit_bytes=ULONG_MAX), jiffies will beyond out
> >> (credit_timeout.expires + MAX_SIGNAL_LONG) and time_after_eq(now,
> >> next_credit) will failure (should be true). So one timer which will
> >> not be trigger in short time, and later process will be aborted when
> >> timer_pending(&vif->credit_timeout) is true. The result will be
> >> DomU's network interface will be hung in long time (> 40days).
> >>    Please think about the below scenario:
> >>    Condition:
> >>      Dom0 running 32-bit and HZ = 1000
> >>      vif->credit_timeout->expire = 0xffffffff, vif->remaining_credit
> >> = 0xffffffff, vif->credit_usec=0 jiffies=0
> >>      vif receive lesser package (DomU send lesser package). If the
> >> value is litter than 2K/s, consume 4G(0xffffffff) will need 582.55
> >> hours. jiffies will large than 0x7ffffff. we guess jiffies =
> >> 0x800000ff, time_after_eq(0x800000ff, 0xffffffff) will failure, and
> >> one time which expire is 0xfffffff will be pended into system. So
> >> the interface will hung until jiffies recount 0xffffffff (that will
> >> need very long time).
> > If I'm not mistaken you meant time_after_eq(now, next_credit) in
> > netback. How does next_credit become 0xffffffff?
> 
> I only assume the value is 0xfffffff, and the value of next_credit 
> isn't  point. If the delta between now and next_credit larger than 
> ULONG_MAX, time_after_eq will do wrong judge.

So it sounds like we need a timer which is independent of the traffic
being sent to keep credit_timeout.expires rolling over.

Can you propose a patch?

Ian.

> >
> > Wei.
> >
> >>    If some error exist in above explain, please help me point it out.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jason
> 


--
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