netdev - Re: [RFC] Applicability of using 'txq_trans

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]

Message-ID: <CACKFLinCdTELX7-19-hp4dK3Ysm2tCmW=qeh-SHoiKU5TShwuw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 11:24:24 -0700
From:   Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To:     Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Applicability of using 'txq_trans_update' during ring recovery

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 11:08 AM Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com> wrote:

> Can you please also comment on whether 'txq_trans_update' is considered
> an acceptable approach in this particular scenario?

In my opinion, updating trans_start to the current jiffies to prevent
TX timeout is not a good solution.  It just buys you the arbitrary TX
timeout period before the next TX timeout.  If you take more than this
time to restart the TX queue, you will still get TX timeout.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4209 bytes)