netdev - RE: Question about ip

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]
Message-ID: <4F88C5DDA1E80143B232E89585ACE27D018F1BA2@DGGEMA502-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2017 01:33:00 +0000
From:   "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@...wei.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        "yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        "elena.reshetova@...el.com" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Wangkefeng (Kevin)" <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        "weiyongjun (A)" <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: Question about ip_defrag


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer [mailto:brouer@...hat.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:59 AM
> To: liujian (CE)
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; kuznet@....inr.ac.ru; yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org;
> elena.reshetova@...el.com; edumazet@...gle.com; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> brouer@...hat.com
> Subject: Re: Question about ip_defrag
> 
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 16:04:41 +0000 "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@...wei.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > >What kernel version have you seen this issue with?
> >
> > 3.10，with some backport.
> >
> >  >As far as I remember, this issue have been fixed before...
> >
> > which one patch? I didnot find out the patch:(
> 
> AFAIK it was some bugs in the percpu_counter code.  If you need to backport
> look at the git commits:
> 
>  git log lib/percpu_counter.c include/linux/percpu_counter.h
> 
> Are you maintaining your own 3.10 kernel?
> 
> I know that for RHEL7 (also kernel 3.10) we backported the percpu_counter
> fixes...
>
Could you tell me which one patch?  we have backported most of the two files's change. 
Thank you ~


> --Jesper
> 
> 
> > 发件人： Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > 收件人： liujian
> (CE)<liujian56@...wei.com<mailto:liujian56@...wei.com>>
> > 抄送：
> >
> davem@...emloft.net<mailto:davem@...emloft.net>;kuznet@....inr.ac.ru
> <m
> > ailto:kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>;yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org<mailto:yoshfuji@li
> > nux-ipv6.org>;elena.reshetova@...el.com<mailto:elena.reshetova@...el.c
> >
> om>;edumazet@...gle.com<mailto:edumazet@...gle.com>;netdev@...r.k
> ernel
> > .org<mailto:netdev@...r.kernel.org>;brouer@...hat.com<mailto:brouer@r
> e
> > dhat.com>
> > 主题： Re: Question about ip_defrag
> > 时间： 2017-08-24 21:53:17
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 13:15:33 +0000 "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@...wei.com>
> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > With below patch we met one issue.
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/c
> > > ommit/?h=v4.13-rc6&id=6d7b857d541e
> > >
> > > the issue:
> > > Ip_defrag fail caused by frag_mem_limit reached 4M(frags.high_thresh).
> > > At this moment,sum_frag_mem_limit is about 10K.
> > > and my test machine's cpu num is 64.
> > >
> > > Can i only change frag_mem_limit to sum_ frag_mem_limit?
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
> > > index 96e95e8..f09c00b 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
> > > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ static void inet_frag_secret_rebuild(struct
> > > inet_frags *f)  static bool inet_fragq_should_evict(const struct
> > > inet_frag_queue *q)  {
> > >         return q->net->low_thresh == 0 ||
> > > -              frag_mem_limit(q->net) >= q->net->low_thresh;
> > > +              sum_frag_mem_limit(q->net) >= q->net->low_thresh;
> > >  }
> > >
> > >  static unsigned int
> > > @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ static struct inet_frag_queue
> > > *inet_frag_alloc(struct netns_frags *nf,  {
> > >         struct inet_frag_queue *q;
> > >
> > > -       if (!nf->high_thresh || frag_mem_limit(nf) > nf->high_thresh) {
> > > +       if (!nf->high_thresh || sum_frag_mem_limit(nf) >
> > > + nf->high_thresh) {
> > >                 inet_frag_schedule_worker(f);
> > >                 return NULL;
> > >         }
> > > @@ -396,7 +396,7 @@ struct inet_frag_queue *inet_frag_find(struct
> netns_frags *nf,
> > >         struct inet_frag_queue *q;
> > >         int depth = 0;
> > >
> > > -       if (frag_mem_limit(nf) > nf->low_thresh)
> > > +       if (sum_frag_mem_limit(nf) > nf->low_thresh)
> > >                 inet_frag_schedule_worker(f);
> > >
> > >         hash &= (INETFRAGS_HASHSZ - 1);
> > > --
> > >
> > > Thank you for your time.
> >
> > What kernel version have you seen this issue with?
> >
> > As far as I remember, this issue have been fixed before...
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> >   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
> >   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer