netdev - Re: [PATCH net] gro: take care of DODGY packets

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:   Fri, 6 Jan 2023 16:13:13 +0100
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
        Jaroslav Pulchart <jaroslav.pulchart@...ddata.com>,
        Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] gro: take care of DODGY packets

On 06.01.23 15:25, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Jaroslav reported a recent throughput regression with virtio_net
> caused by blamed commit.
> 
> It is unclear if DODGY GSO packets coming from user space
> can be accepted by GRO engine in the future with minimal
> changes, and if there is any expected gain from it.
> 
> In the meantime, make sure to detect and flush DODGY packets.
> 
> Fixes: 5eddb24901ee ("gro: add support of (hw)gro packets to gro stack")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> Reported-and-bisected-by: Jaroslav Pulchart <jaroslav.pulchart@...ddata.com>

Many thx for taking care of this. There is one small thing to improve,
please add the following tag here to make things easier for future code
archaeologists:

Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAK8fFZ5pzMaw3U1KXgC_OK4shKGsN=HDcR62cfPOuL0umXE1Ww@mail.gmail.com/

To explain: Linus[1] and others considered proper link tags important in
cases like this, as they allow anyone to look into the backstory of a
commit weeks or years later. That's nothing new, the documentation[2]
for some time says to place tags in cases like this. I care personally
(and made it a bit more explicit in the docs a while ago), because these
tags make my regression tracking efforts a whole lot easier, as they
allow my tracking bot 'regzbot' to automatically connect reports with
patches posted or committed to fix tracked regressions.

Apropos regzbot, let me tell regzbot to monitor this thread:

#regzbot ^backmonitor:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAK8fFZ5pzMaw3U1KXgC_OK4shKGsN=HDcR62cfPOuL0umXE1Ww@mail.gmail.com/

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

[1] for details, see:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjMmSZzMJ3Xnskdg4+GGz=5p5p+GSYyFBTh0f-DgvdBWg@mail.gmail.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgs38ZrfPvy=nOwVkVzjpM3VFU1zobP37Fwd_h9iAD5JQ@mail.gmail.com/
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wjxzafG-=J8oT30s7upn4RhBs6TX-uVFZ5rME+L5_DoJA@mail.gmail.com/

[2] see Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
(http://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html) and
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst
(https://docs.kernel.org/process/5.Posting.html)

--
Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that page.