netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net/sched: add skbprio scheduler

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: <20180713130452.GJ8880@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:04:52 -0300
From:   Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Michel Machado <michel@...irati.com.br>,
        Nishanth Devarajan <ndev2021@...il.com>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cody Doucette <doucette@...edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] net/sched: add skbprio scheduler

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:05:45PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:33 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 07:25:53PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 2:40 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> > > <marcelo.leitner@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 05:03:31PM -0400, Michel Machado wrote:
> > > > >    Changing TC_PRIO_MAX from 15 to 63 risks breaking backward compatibility
> > > > > with applications.
> > > >
> > > > If done, it needs to be done carefully, indeed. I don't know if it's
> > > > doable, neither I know how hard is your requirement for 64 different
> > > > priorities.
> > >
> > > struct tc_prio_qopt {
> > >         int     bands;                  /* Number of bands */
> > >         __u8    priomap[TC_PRIO_MAX+1]; /* Map: logical priority -> PRIO band */
> > > };
> > >
> > > How would you do it carefully?
> >
> > quick shot, multiplex v1 and v2 formats based on bands and sizeof():
> >
> > #define TCQ_PRIO_BANDS_V1       16
> > #define TCQ_PRIO_BANDS_V2       64
> > #define TC_PRIO_MAX_V2          64
> >
> > struct tc_prio_qopt_v2 {
> >         int     bands;                  /* Number of bands */
> >         __u8    priomap[TC_PRIO_MAX_V2+1]; /* Map: logical priority -> PRIO band */
> > };
> >
> 
> Good try, but:
> 
> 1. You don't take padding into account, although the difference
> between 16 and 64 is big here. If it were 16 and 20, almost certainly
> wouldn't work.

It still would work, no matter how much padding you have, as currently
you can't use more than 3 bands.

> 
> 2. What if I compile a new iproute2 on an old kernel? The iproute2
> will use V2, while old kernel has no knowledge of V2, so it only
> copies a part of V2 in the end....

Yes, and that's not a problem:
- Either bands is > 3 and it will return EINVAL, protecting from
  reading beyond the buffer.
- Or 2 <= bands <= 3 and it will handle it as a _v1 struct, and use
  only the original size.

iproute2 (or other app) may still use _v1 if it wants, btw.