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  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:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 13:19:01 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Kehuan Feng <kehuan.feng@...il.com>
Cc:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Jike Song <albcamus@...il.com>, Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>,
        Jonas Bonn <jonas.bonn@...rounds.com>,
        Michael Zhivich <mzhivich@...mai.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Packet gets stuck in NOLOCK pfifo_fast qdisc

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:21 PM Kehuan Feng <kehuan.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> I also tried Cong's patch (shown below on my tree) and it could avoid
> the issue (stressing for 30 minutus for three times and not jitter
> observed).

Thanks for verifying it!

>
> --- ./include/net/sch_generic.h.orig 2020-08-21 15:13:51.787952710 +0800
> +++ ./include/net/sch_generic.h 2020-09-03 21:36:11.468383738 +0800
> @@ -127,8 +127,7 @@
>  static inline bool qdisc_run_begin(struct Qdisc *qdisc)
>  {
>   if (qdisc->flags & TCQ_F_NOLOCK) {
> - if (!spin_trylock(&qdisc->seqlock))
> - return false;
> + spin_lock(&qdisc->seqlock);
>   } else if (qdisc_is_running(qdisc)) {
>   return false;
>   }
>
> I am not actually know what you are discussing above. It seems to me
> that Cong's patch is similar as disabling lockless feature.

>From performance's perspective, yeah. Did you see any performance
downgrade with my patch applied? It would be great if you can compare
it with removing NOLOCK. And if the performance is as bad as no
NOLOCK, then we can remove the NOLOCK bit for pfifo_fast, at least
for now.

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists