| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:40:19 -0400
From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>,
Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH net-next] net/core: initial support for stacked dev feature toggles
There are some netdev features that make little sense to toggle on and
off in a stacked device setup on only one device in the stack. The prime
example is a bonded connection, where it really doesn't make sense to
disable LRO on the master, but not on any of the slaves, nor does it
really make sense to be able to shut LRO off on a slave when its still
enabled on the master.
The strategy here is to add a section near the end of
netdev_fix_features() that looks for upper and lower netdevs, then make
sure certain feature flags match both up and down the stack. At present,
only the LRO flag is included.
This has been successfully tested with bnx2x, qlcnic and netxen network
cards as slaves in a bond interface. Turning LRO on or off on the master
also turns it on or off on each of the slaves, new slaves are added with
LRO in the same state as the master, and LRO can't be toggled on the
slaves.
Also, this should largely remove the need for dev_disable_lro(), and most,
if not all, of its call sites can be replaced by simply making sure
NETIF_F_LRO isn't included in the relevant device's feature flags.
Note that this patch is driven by bug reports from users saying it was
confusing that bonds and slaves had different settings for the same
features, and while it won't be 100% in sync if a lower device doesn't
support a feature like LRO, I think this is a good step in the right
direction.
CC: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
CC: Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>
CC: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>
CC: Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
CC: Nikolay Aleksandrov <razor@...ckwall.org>
CC: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
---
net/core/dev.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
index 1225b4b..26f4e2d 100644
--- a/net/core/dev.c
+++ b/net/core/dev.c
@@ -6261,9 +6261,57 @@ static void rollback_registered(struct net_device *dev)
list_del(&single);
}
+static netdev_features_t netdev_sync_upper_features(struct net_device *lower,
+ struct net_device *upper, netdev_features_t features)
+{
+ netdev_features_t want = upper->wanted_features & lower->hw_features;
+
+ if (!(upper->wanted_features & NETIF_F_LRO)
+ && (features & NETIF_F_LRO)) {
+ netdev_info(lower, "Dropping LRO, upper dev %s has it off.\n",
+ upper->name);
+ features &= ~NETIF_F_LRO;
+ } else if ((want & NETIF_F_LRO) && !(features & NETIF_F_LRO)) {
+ netdev_info(lower, "Keeping LRO, upper dev %s has it on.\n",
+ upper->name);
+ features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
+ }
+
+ return features;
+}
+
+static void netdev_sync_lower_features(struct net_device *upper,
+ struct net_device *lower, netdev_features_t features)
+{
+ netdev_features_t want = features & lower->hw_features;
+
+ if (!(features & NETIF_F_LRO) && (lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO)) {
+ netdev_info(upper, "Disabling LRO on lower dev %s.\n",
+ lower->name);
+ upper->wanted_features &= ~NETIF_F_LRO;
+ lower->wanted_features &= ~NETIF_F_LRO;
+ netdev_update_features(lower);
+ if (unlikely(lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO))
+ netdev_WARN(upper, "failed to disable LRO on %s!\n",
+ lower->name);
+ } else if ((want & NETIF_F_LRO) && !(lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO)) {
+ netdev_info(upper, "Enabling LRO on lower dev %s.\n",
+ lower->name);
+ upper->wanted_features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
+ lower->wanted_features |= NETIF_F_LRO;
+ netdev_update_features(lower);
+ if (unlikely(!(lower->features & NETIF_F_LRO)))
+ netdev_WARN(upper, "failed to enable LRO on %s!\n",
+ lower->name);
+ }
+}
+
static netdev_features_t netdev_fix_features(struct net_device *dev,
netdev_features_t features)
{
+ struct net_device *upper, *lower;
+ struct list_head *iter;
+
/* Fix illegal checksum combinations */
if ((features & NETIF_F_HW_CSUM) &&
(features & (NETIF_F_IP_CSUM|NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM))) {
@@ -6318,6 +6366,15 @@ static netdev_features_t netdev_fix_features(struct net_device *dev,
}
}
+ /* some features should be kept in sync with upper devices */
+ upper = netdev_master_upper_dev_get(dev);
+ if (upper)
+ features = netdev_sync_upper_features(dev, upper, features);
+
+ /* lower devices need some features altered to match upper devices */
+ netdev_for_each_lower_dev(dev, lower, iter)
+ netdev_sync_lower_features(dev, lower, features);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL
if (dev->netdev_ops->ndo_busy_poll)
features |= NETIF_F_BUSY_POLL;
--
1.8.3.1
--
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