netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] vmxnet3: Adjust maximum Rx ring buffer size

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: <20250106165732.3310033e@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 16:57:32 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>
Cc: Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...mlin.com>, ronak.doshi@...adcom.com,
 andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
 pabeni@...hat.com, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] vmxnet3: Adjust maximum Rx ring buffer size

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:51:10 -0800 Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 1/6/25 15:47, 'Jakub Kicinski' via BCM-KERNEL-FEEDBACK-LIST,PDL wrote:
> > On Sun,  5 Jan 2025 21:30:35 +0000 Aaron Tomlin wrote:  
> >> I managed to trigger the MAX_PAGE_ORDER warning in the context of function
> >> __alloc_pages_noprof() with /usr/sbin/ethtool --set-ring rx 4096 rx-mini
> >> 2048 [devname]' using the maximum supported Ring 0 and Rx ring buffer size.
> >> Admittedly this was under the stock Linux kernel-4.18.0-477.27.1.el8_8
> >> whereby CONFIG_CMA is not enabled. I think it does not make sense to
> >> attempt a large memory allocation request for physically contiguous memory,
> >> to hold the Rx Data ring that could exceed the maximum page-order supported
> >> by the system.  
> > 
> > I think CMA should be a bit orthogonal to the warning.
> > 
> > Off the top of my head the usual way to solve the warning is to add
> > __GFP_NOWARN to the allocations which trigger it. And then handle
> > the error gracefully.  
> 
> That IMHO should really be the default for any driver that calls 
> __netdev_alloc_skb() under the hood, we should not really have to 
> specify __GFP_NOWARN, rather if people want it, they should specify it.

True, although TBH I don't fully understand why this flag exists
in the first place. Is it just supposed to be catching programming
errors, or is it due to potential DoS implications of users triggering
large allocations?