netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Use rx_nohandler for unhandled packets

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]

Date:   Sun, 15 Dec 2019 12:41:19 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     ptalbert@...hat.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: Use rx_nohandler for unhandled packets

From: Patrick Talbert <ptalbert@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 17:21:07 +0100

> Since caf586e5f23c ("net: add a core netdev->rx_dropped counter") incoming
> packets which do not have a handler cause a counter named rx_dropped to be
> incremented. This can lead to confusion as some see a non-zero "drop"
> counter as cause for concern.
> 
> To avoid any confusion, instead use the existing rx_nohandler counter. Its
> name more closely aligns with the activity being tracked here.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Talbert <ptalbert@...hat.com>

I disagree with this change.

When deliver_exact is false we try to deliver the packet to an appropriate
ptype handler.  And we end up in the counter bump if no ptype handler
exists.

Therefore, the two counters allow to distinguish two very different
situations and providing that distinction is quite valuable.

I think this distinction was very much intentional.  Having people
understand that rx_dropped can have this meaning is merely a matter of
education.

I'm not applying this patch, sorry.