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: <7bdffaa4-0977-414d-c28f-7408fde20bab@broadcom.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 11:36:08 -0700
From:   Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
To:     Michael Chan <michael.chan@...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 4/12/22 11:24, Michael Chan wrote:
> 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.

However, one can argue that the recovery work is expected to be finished 
in much less time than any arbitrary TX timeout period. If the recovery 
of the particular NAPI ring set is taking more than an arbitrary TX 
timeout period, then something is wrong and we should really TX timeout.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4194 bytes)