netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: qualcomm: rmnet: add tx packets aggregation

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:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 10:13:10 +0100
From:   Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan <quic_subashab@...cinc.com>,
        Sean Tranchetti <quic_stranche@...cinc.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] net: qualcomm: rmnet: add tx packets aggregation

Hello Jakub,

Il giorno ven 11 nov 2022 alle ore 18:14 Jakub Kicinski
<kuba@...nel.org> ha scritto:
>
> On Wed,  9 Nov 2022 19:02:48 +0100 Daniele Palmas wrote:
> > +bool rmnet_map_tx_agg_skip(struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +{
> > +     bool is_icmp = 0;
> > +
> > +     if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP)) {
> > +             struct iphdr *ip4h = ip_hdr(skb);
> > +
> > +             if (ip4h->protocol == IPPROTO_ICMP)
> > +                     is_icmp = true;
> > +     } else if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IPV6)) {
> > +             unsigned int icmp_offset = 0;
> > +
> > +             if (ipv6_find_hdr(skb, &icmp_offset, IPPROTO_ICMPV6, NULL, NULL) == IPPROTO_ICMPV6)
> > +                     is_icmp = true;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     return is_icmp;
> > +}
>
> Why this? I don't see it mention in the commit message or any code
> comment.

This is something I've found in downstream code: with my test setup
and scenario it does not make any difference on the icmp packets
timing (both with or without throughput tests ongoing), but I don't
have access to all the systems for which rmnet is used.

So, I'm not sure if it solves a real issue in other situations.

I can move that out and me or someone else will add it again in case
there will be a real issue to be solved.

Thanks,
Daniele