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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 16:16:51 +0100 From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com> To: Sander Eikelenboom <linux@...elenboom.it> CC: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org> Subject: Re: [3.15-rc3] Bisected: xen-netback mangles packets between two guests on a bridge since merge of "TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY instead of copy" series. On 01/05/14 15:05, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > > Thursday, May 1, 2014, 3:49:45 PM, you wrote: > >> On 30/04/14 11:45, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: >>> Another point would be: what *correctness* testing is actually done on the xen-net* patches ? >> I can speak only about my patches: I have manually tested them for the >> usecases where they likely to make a difference, plus they went through >> Xenserver's full test suite several times. > > I think Paul's patches for 3.14 also went through this testsuite fine, however > it did have a bug in it. Does this testsuite include a test which causes a > diverse pattern of frags (for both tx and rx case) ? Unfortunately these tests doesn't directly try with various skb layouts, but it depends on the sending application/kernel what kind of packet they feed in to netback/netfront. I was always thinking we should create a testing facility where we can generate various different skb's and feed them in at an arbitrary part of the networking stack. Or does such thing already exist? > > >>> As i suspect this is again about fragmented packets .. that doesn't seem to be included in any test case while it actually seems to be a case which is hard to get right... >> Beware, there are frags and frag_list which are two entirely different >> things with confusing names. In netback case, frags are used to pass >> through large packets for a long time. frag_list is used only since my >> grant mapping patches, to handle older guests (see comment in >> include/xen/interface/io/netif.h for XEN_NETIF_NR_SLOTS_MIN) > > Ah ok .. it's not about the frags in the packets being handled, but the frag > mechanism is supposed to be used internally ? Yes, the skb on the frag_list should contain no linear data but that extra frag the guest sent to netback. After the grant operations are done, xenvif_handle_frag_list coalesce the frags and that extra skb into brand new, PAGE_SIZE frags. > > If so .. there is at least something wrong in the "older guest" detection, > because both dom0 and PV guests are running the same 3.15-rc3 kernel. That seems very odd ... Can you check ethtool -S vifX.Y in Dom0? tx_frag_overflow will count the packets with too many frags -- 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