| 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: <643ff6186235b_383475294ea@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 10:09:28 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: yang.yang29@....com.cn, davem@...emloft.net,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com
Cc: kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, shuah@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
zhang.yunkai@....com.cn, yang.yang29@....com.cn,
xu.xin16@....com.cn
Subject: RE: [PATCH linux-next v2] selftests: net: udpgso_bench_rx: Fix
verifty exceptions
yang.yang29@ wrote:
> From: Zhang Yunkai (CGEL ZTE) <zhang.yunkai@....com.cn>
>
> The verification function of this test case is likely to encounter the
> following error, which may confuse users. The problem is easily
> reproducible in the latest kernel.
>
> Environment A, the sender:
> bash# udpgso_bench_tx -l 4 -4 -D "$IP_B"
> udpgso_bench_tx: write: Connection refused
>
> Environment B, the receiver:
> bash# udpgso_bench_rx -4 -G -S 1472 -v
> udpgso_bench_rx: data[1472]: len 17664, a(97) != q(113)
>
> If the packet is captured, you will see:
> Environment A, the sender:
> bash# tcpdump -i eth0 host "$IP_B" &
> IP $IP_A.41025 > $IP_B.8000: UDP, length 1472
> IP $IP_A.41025 > $IP_B.8000: UDP, length 1472
> IP $IP_B > $IP_A: ICMP $IP_B udp port 8000 unreachable, length 556
>
> Environment B, the receiver:
> bash# tcpdump -i eth0 host "$IP_B" &
> IP $IP_A.41025 > $IP_B.8000: UDP, length 7360
> IP $IP_A.41025 > $IP_B.8000: UDP, length 14720
> IP $IP_B > $IP_A: ICMP $IP_B udp port 8000 unreachable, length 556
>
> In one test, the verification data is printed as follows:
> abcd...xyz | 1...
> .. |
> abcd...xyz |
> abcd...opabcd...xyz | ...1472... Not xyzabcd, messages are merged
> .. |
>
> This is because the sending buffer is buf[64K], and its content is a
> loop of A-Z. But maybe only 1472 bytes per send, or more if UDP GSO is
> used. The message content does not necessarily end with XYZ, but GRO
> will merge these packets, and the -v parameter directly verifies the
> entire GRO receive buffer. So we do the validation after the data is split
> at the receiving end, just as the application actually uses this feature.
The explanation can be much more brief. The issue is that the test on
receive for expected payload pattern {AB..Z}+ fail for GRO packets if
segment payload does not end on a Z.
> If the sender does not use GSO, each individual segment starts at A,
> end at somewhere. Using GSO also has the same problem, and. The data
> between each segment during transmission is continuous, but GRO is merged
> in the order received, which is not necessarily the order of transmission.
The issue as I understand it is due to the above, not due to reordering.
Am I misunderstanding the problem?
> Execution in the same environment does not cause problems, because the
> lo device is not NAPI, and does not perform GRO processing. Perhaps it
> could be worth supporting to reduce system calls.
> bash# tcpdump -i lo host "$IP_self" &
> bash# echo udp_gro_receive > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/set_ftrace_filter
> bash# echo function > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/current_tracer
> bash# udpgso_bench_rx -4 -G -S 1472 -v &
> bash# udpgso_bench_tx -l 4 -4 -D "$IP_self"
This is not relevant.
> The issue still exists when using the GRO with -G, but not using the -S
> to obtain gsosize. Therefore, a print has been added to remind users.
>
> After this issue is resolved, another issue will be encountered and will
> be resolved in the next patch.
> Environment A, the sender:
> bash# udpgso_bench_tx -l 4 -4 -D "$DST"
> udpgso_bench_tx: write: Connection refused
>
> Environment B, the receiver:
> bash# udpgso_bench_rx -4 -G -S 1472
> udp rx: 15 MB/s 256 calls/s
> udp rx: 30 MB/s 512 calls/s
> udpgso_bench_rx: recv: bad gso size, got -1, expected 1472
> (-1 == no gso cmsg))
This is not relevant to *this patch*
> v2:
> - Fix confusing descriptions
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yunkai (CGEL ZTE) <zhang.yunkai@....com.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Xu Xin (CGEL ZTE) <xu.xin16@....com.cn>
> Reviewed-by: Yang Yang (CGEL ZTE) <yang.yang29@....com.cn>
> Cc: Xuexin Jiang (CGEL ZTE) <jiang.xuexin@....com.cn>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgso_bench_rx.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgso_bench_rx.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgso_bench_rx.c
> index f35a924d4a30..6a2026494cdb 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgso_bench_rx.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgso_bench_rx.c
> @@ -189,26 +189,44 @@ static char sanitized_char(char val)
> return (val >= 'a' && val <= 'z') ? val : '.';
> }
>
> -static void do_verify_udp(const char *data, int len)
> +static void do_verify_udp(const char *data, int start, int len)
> {
> - char cur = data[0];
> + char cur = data[start];
> int i;
>
> /* verify contents */
> if (cur < 'a' || cur > 'z')
> error(1, 0, "data initial byte out of range");
>
> - for (i = 1; i < len; i++) {
> + for (i = start + 1; i < start + len; i++) {
> if (cur == 'z')
> cur = 'a';
> else
> cur++;
>
> - if (data[i] != cur)
> + if (data[i] != cur) {
> + if (cfg_gro_segment && !cfg_expected_gso_size)
> + error(0, 0, "Use -S to obtain gsosize, to %s"
> + , "help guide split and verification.");
> +
> error(1, 0, "data[%d]: len %d, %c(%hhu) != %c(%hhu)\n",
> i, len,
> sanitized_char(data[i]), data[i],
> sanitized_char(cur), cur);
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void do_verify_udp_gro(const char *data, int len, int gso_size)
> +{
> + int start = 0;
> +
> + while (len - start > 0) {
> + if (len - start > gso_size)
> + do_verify_udp(data, start, gso_size);
> + else
> + do_verify_udp(data, start, len - start);
> + start += gso_size;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -264,16 +282,20 @@ static void do_flush_udp(int fd)
> if (cfg_expected_pkt_len && ret != cfg_expected_pkt_len)
> error(1, 0, "recv: bad packet len, got %d,"
> " expected %d\n", ret, cfg_expected_pkt_len);
> + if (cfg_expected_gso_size && cfg_expected_gso_size != gso_size)
> + error(1, 0, "recv: bad gso size, got %d, expected %d %s",
> + gso_size, cfg_expected_gso_size, "(-1 == no gso cmsg))\n");
why move this block? and don't pass part of the fmt as an extra %s.
> if (len && cfg_verify) {
> if (ret == 0)
> error(1, errno, "recv: 0 byte datagram\n");
>
> - do_verify_udp(rbuf, ret);
> + if (!cfg_gro_segment)
> + do_verify_udp(rbuf, 0, ret);
> + else if (gso_size > 0)
> + do_verify_udp_gro(rbuf, ret, gso_size);
> + else
> + do_verify_udp_gro(rbuf, ret, ret);
> }
> - if (cfg_expected_gso_size && cfg_expected_gso_size != gso_size)
> - error(1, 0, "recv: bad gso size, got %d, expected %d "
> - "(-1 == no gso cmsg))\n", gso_size,
> - cfg_expected_gso_size);
>
> packets++;
> bytes += ret;
> --
> 2.15.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists