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: <20170829092021.0a46fffa@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:20:21 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     "liujian (CE)" <liujian56@...wei.com>,
        "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>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Question about ip_defrag

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 16:00:32 +0200
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:

> liujian (CE) <liujian56@...wei.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > I checked our 3.10 kernel, we had backported all percpu_counter bug fix in lib/percpu_counter.c and include/linux/percpu_counter.h.
> > And I check 4.13-rc6, also has the issue if NIC's rx cpu num big enough.
> >   
> > > > > > 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.  
> > 
> > So should we change ipfrag high/low thresh to a reasonable value ? 
> > And if it is, is there a standard to change the value?  
> 
> Each cpu can have frag_percpu_counter_batch bytes rest doesn't know
> about so with 64 cpus that is ~8 mbyte.
> 
> possible solutions:
> 1. reduce frag_percpu_counter_batch to 16k or so
> 2. make both low and high thresh depend on NR_CPUS

To me it looks like we/I have been using the wrong API for comparing
against percpu_counters.  I guess we should have used __percpu_counter_compare().

/*
 * Compare counter against given value.
 * Return 1 if greater, 0 if equal and -1 if less
 */
int __percpu_counter_compare(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 rhs, s32 batch)
{
	s64	count;

	count = percpu_counter_read(fbc);
	/* Check to see if rough count will be sufficient for comparison */
	if (abs(count - rhs) > (batch * num_online_cpus())) {
		if (count > rhs)
			return 1;
		else
			return -1;
	}
	/* Need to use precise count */
	count = percpu_counter_sum(fbc);
	if (count > rhs)
		return 1;
	else if (count < rhs)
		return -1;
	else
		return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_compare);


-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer