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:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 23:46:47 +0200
From:   Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
CC:     "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Y.b. Lu" <yangbo.lu@....com>,
        Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>,
        "UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com" <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "vivien.didelot@...il.com" <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "richardcochran@...il.com" <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: mscc: ocelot: always pass skb clone to
 ocelot_port_add_txtstamp_skb

The 09/23/2020 20:45, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:35:30PM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > The 09/23/2020 20:22, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:08:00PM +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > > The 09/23/2020 14:24, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > > +               if (ocelot_port->ptp_cmd == IFH_REW_OP_TWO_STEP_PTP) {
> > > > > +                       struct sk_buff *clone;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +                       clone = skb_clone_sk(skb);
> > > > > +                       if (!clone) {
> > > > > +                               kfree_skb(skb);
> > > > > +                               return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> > > >
> > > > Why do you return NETDEV_TX_OK?
> > > > Because the frame is not sent yet.
> > >
> > > I suppose I _could_ increment the tx_dropped counters, if that's what
> > > you mean.
> >
> > Yeah, something like that I was thinking.
> >
> > Also I am just thinking, not sure if it is correct but, can you return
> > NETDEV_TX_BUSY and not free the skb?
> >
> 
> Do you have a use case for NETDEV_TX_BUSY instead of plain dropping the
> skb, some situation where it would be better?

Not really.

> 
> I admit I haven't tested this particular code path, but my intuition
> tells me that under OOM, the last thing you need is some networking
> driver just trying and trying again to send a packet.

Yes, I totally understand your point and I aggree with you.

> 
> Documentation/networking/driver.rst:

I looked also initially in this document, that is the reason why I was
not sure if it is correct to return NETDEV_TX_BUSY.

> 
> 1) The ndo_start_xmit method must not return NETDEV_TX_BUSY under
>    any normal circumstances.  It is considered a hard error unless
>    there is no way your device can tell ahead of time when it's
>    transmit function will become busy.
> 
> Looking up the uses of NETDEV_TX_BUSY, I see pretty much only congestion
> type of events.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Vladimir

-- 
/Horatiu

Powered by blists - more mailing lists