netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 01/13] net: dsa: add plumbing for custom netdev statistics

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, 18 Oct 2020 16:13:28 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
        "f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        "vivien.didelot@...il.com" <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Christian Eggers <ceggers@...i.de>,
        Kurt Kanzenbach <kurt@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/13] net: dsa: add plumbing for custom netdev
 statistics

On 18.10.2020 15:48, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 03:09:32PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> On 18.10.2020 14:16, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 02:02:46PM +0200, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't a simple unsigned long (like in struct net_device_stats) be
>>>> sufficient here? This would make handling the counter much simpler.
>>>> And as far as I understand we talk about a packet counter that is
>>>> touched in certain scenarios only.
>>>
>>> I don't understand, in what sense 'sufficient'? This counter is exported
>>> to ethtool which works with u64 values, how would an unsigned long,
>>> which is u32 on 32-bit systems, help?
>>>
>> Sufficient for me means that it's unlikely that a 32 bit counter will
>> overflow. Many drivers use the 32 bit counters (on a 32bit system) in
>> net_device_stats for infrequent events like rx/tx errors, and 64bit
>> counters only for things like rx/tx bytes, which are more likely to
>> overflow.
> 
> 2^32 = 4,294,967,296 = 4 billion packets
> Considering that every packet that needs TX timestamping must be
> reallocated, protocols such as IEEE 802.1AS will trigger 5 reallocs per
> second. So time synchronization alone (background traffic, by all
> accounts) will make this counter overflow in 27 years.
> Every packet flooded or multicast by the bridge will also trigger
> reallocs. In this case it is not difficult to imagine that overflows
> might occur sooner.
> 
> Even if the above wasn't true. What becomes easier when I make the
> counter an unsigned long? I need to make arch-dependent casts between an
> unsigned long an an u64 when I expose the counter to ethtool, and there
> it ends up being u64 too, doesn't it?
> 

Access to unsigned long should be atomic, so you could avoid the
following and access the counter directly (like other drivers do it
with the net_device_stats members). On a side note, because I'm also
just dealing with it: this_cpu_ptr() is safe only if preemption is
disabled. Is this the case here? Else there's get_cpu_ptr/put_cpu_ptr.
Also, if irq's aren't disabled there might be a need to use
u64_stats_update_begin_irqsave() et al. See:
2695578b896a ("net: usbnet: fix potential deadlock on 32bit hosts")
But I don't know dsa good enough to say whether this is applicable
here.

+	e = this_cpu_ptr(p->extra_stats);
+	u64_stats_update_begin(&e->syncp);
+	e->tx_reallocs++;
+	u64_stats_update_end(&e->syncp);

+		e = per_cpu_ptr(p->extra_stats, i);
+		do {
+			start = u64_stats_fetch_begin_irq(&e->syncp);
+			tx_reallocs	= e->tx_reallocs;
+		} while (u64_stats_fetch_retry_irq(&e->syncp, start));