netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net/mlx5e: Report rx_discards_phy via rx_fifo

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]

Message-ID: <1060ac7d-ad76-4383-906f-9f20a7b8174a@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 08:04:35 +0200
From: Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
 ttoukan.linux@...il.com, tariqt@...dia.com, leon@...nel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net/mlx5e: Report rx_discards_phy via
 rx_fifo_errors

On 16/11/2024 0:42, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:09:02 -0800 Saeed Mahameed wrote:
>>>> rx_dropped: Number of packets received but not processed,
>>>>   *   e.g. due to lack of resources or unsupported protocol.
>>>>   *   For hardware interfaces this counter may include packets discarded
>>>>   *   due to L2 address filtering but should not include packets dropped
>>>>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>   *   by the device due to buffer exhaustion which are counted separately in
>>>>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>   *   @rx_missed_errors (since procfs folds those two counters together).
>>>>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
>>>
>>> I presume you quote this comment to indicate the rx_dropped should
>>> count packets dropped due to buffer exhaustion? If yes then you don't
>>> understand the comment. If no then I don't understand why you're
>>> quoting it.
>>
>> I quoted this because you suggested to use rx_dropped. It's not a good fit.
>> In your previous reply you said: 
>> "but honestly I'd just make sure they are counted in rx_dropped"
> 
> The comment just says not to add what's already counted in missed,
> because profcs adds the two and we'd end up double counting.

So this is a procfs thing only?
Does that mean that netlink's rx_dropped might be different than procfs'
rx_dropped?