[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1b40f49d-1dd0-5bec-2a08-f55ac3529da3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 12:25:33 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kuba@...nel.org,
alobakin@...me, jonathan.lemon@...il.com,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, pabeni@...hat.com,
vvs@...tuozzo.com, cong.wang@...edance.com
Cc: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: gro: set the last skb->next to NULL when it get
merged
On 10/27/21 1:07 AM, Jason Xing wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 3:23 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:19 PM <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>
>>>
>>> Setting the @next of the last skb to NULL to prevent the panic in future
>>> when someone does something to the last of the gro list but its @next is
>>> invalid.
>>>
>>> For example, without the fix (commit: ece23711dd95), a panic could happen
>>> with the clsact loaded when skb is redirected and then validated in
>>> validate_xmit_skb_list() which could access the error addr of the @next
>>> of the last skb. Thus, "general protection fault" would appear after that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <xingwanli@...ishou.com>
>>> ---
>>> net/core/skbuff.c | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
>>> index 2170bea..7b248f1 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
>>> @@ -4396,6 +4396,7 @@ int skb_gro_receive(struct sk_buff *p, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> skb_shinfo(p)->frag_list = skb;
>>> else
>>> NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->last->next = skb;
>>> + skb->next = NULL;
>>> NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->last = skb;
>>
>> Besides, I'm a little bit confused that this operation inserts the
>> newest skb into the tail of the flow, so the tail of flow is the
>> newest, head oldest. The patch (commit: 600adc18) introduces the flush
>> of the oldest when the flow is full to lower the latency, but actually
>> it fetches the tail of the flow. Do I get something wrong here? I feel
>
> I have to update this part. The commit 600adc18 evicts and flushes the
> oldest flow. But for the current kernel, when
> "napi->gro_hash[hash].count >= MAX_GRO_SKBS" happens, the
> gro_flush_oldest() flushes the oldest skb of one certain flow,
> actually it is the newest skb because it is at the end of the list.
GRO only keeps one skb per flow in the main hash/lru.
I think you are not understanding GRO correctly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists