netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH 2/2] net: ravb: Fix R-Car RX frame size limit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <933ffa58-8092-4768-993d-cd62897d203d@bp.renesas.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 15:03:21 +0100
From: Paul Barker <paul.barker.ct@...renesas.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se>,
 Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
 Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@...renesas.com>,
 Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
 Mitsuhiro Kimura <mitsuhiro.kimura.kc@...esas.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH 2/2] net: ravb: Fix R-Car RX frame size limit

On 16/06/2024 02:23, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 11:30:38AM +0100, Paul Barker wrote:
>> The RX frame size limit should not be based on the current MTU setting.
>> Instead it should be based on the hardware capabilities.
> 
> This is a bit odd. MTU is Maximum Transmission Unit, so clearly is
> about Tx. MRU does not really exist. Does TCP allow for asymmetric
> MTU/MRU? Does MTU discovery work correctly for this?
> 
> In general, it seems like drivers implement min(MTU, MRU) and nothing
> more. Do you have a real use case for this asymmetry?
> 
>       Andrew

Hi Andrew,

This change is based on my understanding of MTU/MRU, on the specs of the
RZ SoCs I'm working with (primarily RZ/G2L family, RZ/G3S and RZ/G2H)
and on some testing. My goal here is just to make the capabilities of
the hardware available to users.

For the RZ/G2L family and RZ/G3S, we can only support an MTU of up to
1500 bytes, but we can receive frames of up to (IIRC) 8192 bytes. I have
tested sending jumbo frames to an RZ/G2L device using both iperf3 and
ping and I see no errors.

* For iperf3 RX testing, the RZ/G2L is only responding with acks. These
  are small regardless of the size of the received packets, so the
  mis-match in MTU between the two hosts causes no issue.

* For ping testing, the RZ/G2L will give a fragmented response to the
  ping packet which the other host can reassemble.

For the RZ/G2H, we support sending frames of up to 2047 bytes but we can
receive frames of up to 4092 bytes. The driver will need a few more
changes to handle reception of packets >2kB in size, but this is
something we can do in the near future.

Is there any reason why we shouldn't support this? I am by no means an
expert in the Linux networking internals so there may be things I'm
missing.

Thanks,

-- 
Paul Barker
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0x27F4B3459F002257.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3521 bytes)

Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (237 bytes)