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:	Thu, 17 Oct 2013 06:45:52 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
	jmorris@...ei.org, kaber@...sh.net, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Neterion and UFO handling [was: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: udp packets following an UFO enqueued packet need also be handled by UFO]

Hi Jon and Jiri!

Just wanted to remind you if you could have a look at this?

If you don't have time to test this may I know your assessment of the
situation? I could send a compile-time tested patch to disable UFO or if you
say so we could leave this as is.

Jiri, I would suggest you resend your patches then.

Thanks,

  Hannes

[top-posted by intention]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 04:53:31PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:07:29AM -0700, Jon Mason wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> > <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I have a question regarding UFO and the neterion driver, which as the only one
> > > advertises hardware UFO support:
> > >
> > > The patch discusses in this thread
> > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/284348/focus=285405 could change
> > > some semantics how packets are constructed before submitted to the driver.
> > >
> > > We currently guarantee that we have the MAC/IP/UDP header in skb->data and the
> > > payload is attached in the skb's frags. With the changes discussed in this
> > > thread it is possible that we also append to skb->data some amount of data
> > > which is not targeted for the header. From reading the driver sources it seems
> > > the hardware interprets the skb->data to skb_headlen as the header, so we
> > > could include some data in the fragments more than once.
> > 
> > From my reading of the HW Spec and a quick look at the driver, it
> > appears that the driver is using one entry in the TX ring for the
> > header and another for the body of the packet to be fragmented (which
> > is what the hardware wants).  I don't understand what you are saying,
> > but if you are asking if simply appending a new header & data to the
> > end of skb->data will get it out on the wire correct, I don't believe
> > it will.
> 
> No this is not what I tried to say. I'll try to be more clear this
> time. ;)
> 
> We start with an UDP socket which is corked. As soon as we write the
> first few bytes (smaller than the mtu) onto this socket we put the
> header in place and the rest of the data is just appended behind the
> header directly in skb->data via plain ip_append_data.
> 
> Now a second write with a length > mtu happens: The ip(6)_append_data
> will branch to ufo_append. This will fetch the first skb and append
> to skb->frags.  gso_type and gso_size will be updated on this skb (this
> currently does not happen but will with the patches discussed in this
> thread).
> 
> If this packet is transmitted down to the device driver we have the udp
> header in skb->data *and* also the payload from the first write. The
> payload from the second write is appended as a frag and gso_type and
> gso_size are set. This header+payload seem to be mapped just after the
> ufo_in_band_v descriptor as the header in the first tx descriptor:
> 
>    4174         txdp->Buffer_Pointer = pci_map_single(sp->pdev, skb->data,
>    4175                                               frg_len, PCI_DMA_TODEVICE);
> 
> frg_len is set to skb_headlen(skb). This happens right after setting up
> the descriptor for the in-band ufo data.
> 
> My guess is that this data isn't split currently by the neterion driver
> (at least I could not find it in the driver as Eric showed it for bnx2x)
> so it might reappear in the packets when the hardware fragments the
> packet and places the first tx ring in front of every packet.
> 
> Before these changes we never updated the gso_type and gso_size even when
> we did append via UFO. So we never had payload in an UFO marked skb->data,
> only the headers. Now we could also end up with a some payload in the
> first TX ring, which you said is only for the header.
> 
> > I do have hardware that I can try the patch on, if you can walk me
> > through the use case (unless it is as easy as setup an IPv6 connection
> > and ping).
> 
> Ok, testing this should not be that complicated:
> 
> We can test this with plain IPv4/UDP sockets. I would suggest a net-next kernel
> with this patch from Jiri applied: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/279691/
> 
> --- >8 ---
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/socket.h>
> #include <netinet/in.h>
> #include <arpa/inet.h>
> #include <linux/udp.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> 
> int test(int mtu)
> {
>         int fd;
>         const int one = 1;
>         const int off = 0;
>         struct sockaddr_in addr = {.sin_family = AF_INET, .sin_port = htons(53) };
>         unsigned char buffer[3701];
> 
>         inet_pton(AF_INET, "127.0.0.1", &addr.sin_addr);
> 
>         fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
>         connect(fd, (struct sockaddr *) &addr, sizeof(addr));
> 
>         setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_UDP, UDP_CORK, &one, sizeof(one));
> 
>         write(fd, "    ", 4);
>         write(fd, buffer, sizeof(buffer));
>         write(fd, " ", 1);
> 
>         setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_UDP, UDP_CORK, &off, sizeof(off));
> 
>         close(fd);
> }
> 
> int main() {
>         test(1280);
> }
> --- >8 ---
> 
> I left out error handling so it is better observed with strace if
> something went wrong.
> 
> You should change the port number and ip address to something reasonable
> for your network. My guess would be that the spaces (0x20) of the first
> write is now placed between UDP header and payload of every packet
> fragmented by the hardware. Would be nice to hear that I am wrong. ;)
> 
> Be aware that the above program can cause memory corruption in the kernel
> if you did not apply Jiri's patch.
> 
> Thanks for helping!
> 
>   Hannes
> 
> --
> 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
> 

-- 
gruss,

  Hannes

--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ