netdev - Re: [PATCH v1 net] page_pool: Cap queue size to 32k.

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <75bcd331-9a62-486f-a15f-6aebf4d1838b@kadam.mountain>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 12:57:34 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Ratheesh Kannoth <rkannoth@...vell.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
	pabeni@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
	hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com, jiawenwu@...stnetic.com,
	mengyuanlou@...-swift.com, yang.lee@...ux.alibaba.com,
	error27@...il.com, linyunsheng@...wei.com,
	linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, kys@...rosoft.com,
	haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org, decui@...rosoft.com,
	longli@...rosoft.com, shradhagupta@...ux.microsoft.com,
	linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, michael.chan@...adcom.com,
	richardcochran@...il.com, jdelvare@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
	yisen.zhuang@...wei.com, salil.mehta@...wei.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, nbd@....name, john@...ozen.org,
	sean.wang@...iatek.com, Mark-MC.Lee@...iatek.com,
	lorenzo@...nel.org, matthias.bgg@...il.com,
	angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com, linux@...linux.org.uk,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, saeedm@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org,
	gerhard@...leder-embedded.com, maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com,
	alexanderduyck@...com, wei.fang@....com, shenwei.wang@....com,
	xiaoning.wang@....com, linux-imx@....com, lgirdwood@...il.com,
	broonie@...nel.org, jaswinder.singh@...aro.org,
	ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org, UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com,
	horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	grygorii.strashko@...com, simon.horman@...igine.com,
	vladimir.oltean@....com, aleksander.lobakin@...el.com,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
	alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com, joabreu@...opsys.com,
	mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
	thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com, mw@...ihalf.com, sgoutham@...vell.com,
	gakula@...vell.com, sbhatta@...vell.com, hkelam@...vell.com,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, jgross@...e.com,
	sstabellini@...nel.org, oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, ryder.lee@...iatek.com,
	shayne.chen@...iatek.com, kvalo@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org,
	martin.lau@...ux.dev, song@...nel.org, yonghong.song@...ux.dev,
	kpsingh@...nel.org, sdf@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com,
	jolsa@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net] page_pool: Cap queue size to 32k.

On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 11:34:11AM +0530, Ratheesh Kannoth wrote:
> Clamp to 32k instead of returning error.

What is the motivation here?  What is the real world impact for the
users?

> 
> Please find discussion at
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
> CY4PR1801MB1911E15D518A77535F6E51E2D308A@...PR1801MB1911.
> namprd18.prod.outlook.com/T/

Please don't break the URL up like this.  I think normally we would just
write up a normal commit message and use the Link: tag.

Fixes: ff7d6b27f894 ("page_pool: refurbish version of page_pool code")
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CY4PR1801MB1911E15D518A77535F6E51E2D308A@CY4PR1801MB1911.namprd18.prod.outlook.com/
Signed-off-by:

> @@ -171,9 +171,10 @@ static int page_pool_init(struct page_pool *pool,
>  	if (pool->p.pool_size)
>  		ring_qsize = pool->p.pool_size;
>  
> -	/* Sanity limit mem that can be pinned down */
> +	/* Cap queue size to 32k */
>  	if (ring_qsize > 32768)
> -		return -E2BIG;
> +		ring_qsize = 32768;
> +
>  
>  	/* DMA direction is either DMA_FROM_DEVICE or DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL.

Don't introduce a blank line here.  Checkpatch will complain if you
have to blank lines in a row.  It won't complain about the patch but it
will complain if you apply the patch and then re-run checkpatch -f on
the file.  (I didn't test this but it's wrong either way. :P).

regards,
dan carpenter