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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20220719202234.sym2tqtsko5iond2@sx1> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 13:22:34 -0700 From: Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org> To: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com> Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com> Subject: Re: [net-next 03/14] net/mlx5e: Expose rx_oversize_pkts_buffer counter On 19 Jul 14:13, Gal Pressman wrote: >On 19/07/2022 06:25, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 14:33:41 -0700 Saeed Mahameed wrote: >>> From: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com> >>> >>> Add the rx_oversize_pkts_buffer counter to ethtool statistics. >>> This counter exposes the number of dropped received packets due to >>> length which arrived to RQ and exceed software buffer size allocated by >>> the device for incoming traffic. It might imply that the device MTU is >>> larger than the software buffers size. >> Is it counted towards any of the existing stats as well? It needs >> to end up in struct rtnl_link_stats64::rx_length_errors somehow. it is already counted in ethtool->rx_wqe_err, but rx wqe err is more general purpose and can include other errors too, the idea is to have a better resolution for the error reason. > >Probably makes sense to count it in rx_over_errors: > * The recommended interpretation for high speed interfaces is - > * number of packets dropped because they did not fit into buffers > * provided by the host, e.g. packets larger than MTU or next buffer > * in the ring was not available for a scatter transfer. > >It doesn't fit the rx_length_errors (802.3) as these packets are not >dropped on the MAC. >Will change. I will drop this patch until we have a decision. but i tend to agree with Gal.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists