netdev - Re: Latest net-next kernel 4.19.0+

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: <CAM_iQpUKTh51maAzht8M3LuJAYDRMRnsGn_+Db0rGG-scW2SnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:32:39 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>,
        dmichail@...gle.com,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Latest net-next kernel 4.19.0+

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:16 AM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/30/2018 01:09 AM, Paweł Staszewski wrote:
> >
> >
> > W dniu 30.10.2018 o 08:29, Eric Dumazet pisze:
> >>
> >> On 10/29/2018 11:09 PM, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
> >>
> >>> Indeed this is a bug. I would expect it to produce frequent errors
> >>> though as many odd-length
> >>> packets would trigger it. Do you have RXFCS? Regardless, how
> >>> frequently do you see the problem?
> >>>
> >> Old kernels (before 88078d98d1bb) were simply resetting ip_summed to CHECKSUM_NONE
> >>
> >> And before your fix (commit d55bef5059dd057bd), mlx5 bug was canceling the bug you fixed.
> >>
> >> So we now need to also fix mlx5.
> >>
> >> And of course use skb_header_pointer() in mlx5e_get_fcs() as I mentioned earlier,
> >> plus __get_unaligned_cpu32() as you hinted.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No RXFCS


Same with Pawel, RXFCS is disabled by default.


> >
> > And this trace is rly frequently like once per 3/4 seconds
> > like below:
> > [28965.776864] vlan1490: hw csum failure
>
> Might be vlan related.

Unlike Pawel's case, we don't use vlan at all, maybe this is why we see
it much less frequently than Pawel.

Also, it is probably not specific to mlx5, as there is another report which
is probably a non-mlx5 driver.

Thanks.