netdev - Re: Possible bug in traffic control?

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: <CACcUnf-HTqht3ogcd4YKdWxe0HvFqo7OYRR8SmkCGWe5d8zDHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:05:34 -0400
From:   Josh Coombs <jcoombs@...ff.gwi.net>
To:     xiyou.wangcong@...il.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible bug in traffic control?

I'm actually leaning towards macsec now.  I'm at 6TB transferred in a
double hop, no macsec over the bridge setup without triggering the
fault.  I'm going to let it continue to churn and setup a second
testbed that JUST uses macsec without traffic control bridging to see
if I can trip the issue there.    That should determine if it's macsec
itself, or an interaction between macsec and traffic control.

Joshua Coombs
GWI

office 207-494-2140
www.gwi.net

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 12:39 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:54 AM Josh Coombs <jcoombs@...ff.gwi.net> wrote:
> >
> > 2.3 billion 1 byte packets failed to re-create the bug.  To try and
> > simplify the setup I removed macsec from the equation, using a single
> > host in the middle as the bridge.  Interestingly, rather than 1.3Gbits
> > a second in both directions, it ran around 8Mbits a second.  Switching
> > the filter from u32 to matchall didn't change the performance.  Going
> > back to the four machine test bed, again removing macsec and just
> > bridging through radically decreased the throughput to around 8Mbits.
> > Flip on macsec for the bridge and 1.3Gbits?
>
> This is a great narrow down! We can rule out macsec for guilty.
>
> Can you share a minimum reproducer for this problem? If so I can take
> a look.