netdev - Re: [PATCH net] net: Allow flow dissector to handle non 4-byte aligned headers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 2016 12:31:25 -0500
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: Allow flow dissector to handle non 4-byte
 aligned headers

On (02/03/16 09:07), Tom Herbert wrote:
> > Kernel unaligned access at TPC[9150dc] ipv4_neigh_lookup+0x38/0x170
> 
> Sowmini,
> 
> This doesn't look like a hard crash to me. Instead of trying to fix
> all the alignment issues for Sparc, can we just take the trap, fix up
> the load, and continue without any further fuss? Performance might
> suffer, but it doesn't seem like the bad alignments are happening in
> critical paths.
> 

None of these things is a hard crash, but they are 

(a) quite noisy 
(b) I'm able to generate alignment falls merely by configuring
    tunnels, and it gets worse when I disable RSS and use RFS/RPS
    instead. So "critical path" might need some definition.
(c) a perf risk for other platforms as well, even when they dont
    complain noisily about it.

--Sowmini