RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 17:49 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote: > Are you saying the few lines of code to handle changes to the tunables > aren't worth keeping? Yes. I think the tunables, if needed at all, should be set by modifying the struct and the call might as well be: bool __printk_ratelimit(struct printk_ratelimit_state *state) Another quibble is not directed to your change because it's preexisting but "tok" isn't a good name and may not even need to be in the structure. It does save a multiply though. I think that anything that attempts a printk is slow path so it doesn't matter much though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:36:40 -0600 Steven Hawkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Steve Hawkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit() functions each have their own
> tunable parameters to control their respective rate limiting feature, but
> they share common state variables, preventing independent tuning of the
> parameters from working correctly. Also, changes to rate limiting tunable
> parameters do not always take effect properly since state is not recomputed
> when changes occur. For example, if ratelimit_burst is increased while rate
> limiting is occurring, the change won't take full effect until at least
> enough time between messages occurs so that the toks value reaches
> ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies. This can result in messages being
> suppressed when they should be allowed.
>
> Implement independent state for printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit(), and
> update state when tunables are changed.
>
This patch causes a large and nasty reject.
> ---
> --- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0
> -0600
> +++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-02-21
> 11:20:41.751197312 -0600
Probably because you patched 2.6.24. We're developing 2.6.25 now, and the
difference between the two is very large inded. Please raise patches
against Linus's latest tree?
There are other patches pending against printk.c (in -mm and in git-sched)
but afacit they won't collide.
> @@ -196,8 +196,19 @@ static inline int log_buf_copy(char *des
>
> unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long);
>
> +struct printk_ratelimit_state
> +{
Please do
struct printk_ratelimit_state {
> + unsigned long toks;
> + unsigned long last_jiffies;
> + int missed;
> + int limit_jiffies;
> + int limit_burst;
> + char const *facility;
> +};
I find that the best-value comments one can add to kernel code are to the
members of structures. If the reader understands what all the fields do, the
code becomes simple to follow.
> --- linux-2.6.24/net/core/utils.c 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0 -0600
> +++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/net/core/utils.c2008-02-21
> 11:03:44.644337698 -0600
> @@ -41,7 +41,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(net_msg_warn);
> */
> int net_ratelimit(void)
> {
> - return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst);
> + static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
> + .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
> + .last_jiffies = 0,
> + .missed= 0,
> + .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
> + .limit_burst = 10,
> + .facility = "net"
> + };
> +
> + return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst, _state);
I don't get it. There's one instance of limit_state, kernel-wide, and
__printk_ratelimit() modifies it. What prevents one CPU's activities from
interfering with a second CPU's activities?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:47 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote: > How about this? line wrapped, but seems better. > Signed-off-by: Steve Hawkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h > linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h > --- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0 > + * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks: > + * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies. > */ > -int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst) > +int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, > + int ratelimit_burst, > + struct printk_ratelimit_state *state) I think the value of in-place tunables is low. I'd remove that bit and use the struct printk_ratelimit_state. David Miller points out that struct initializations to 0 or NULL are not necessary. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
From: "Hawkes Steve-FSH016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:47:11 -0600 > > .facility = NULL > > How about this? Actually, for compile time initializations, setting anything to zero is superfluous and by convention is not therefore explicitly done in the sources. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:32 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > + if (lost) {
> > > + printk(KERN_WARNING
> > > +"printk: %d %s%smessage%s suppressed.\n",
> > > +lost,
> > > +(state->facility == 0 ? "" :
> > > state->facility),
> > > +(state->facility == 0 ? "" : " "),
> > > +(lost > 1 ? "s" : ""));
> > > + }
> > > return 1;
> > > }
>
> This compares a pointer to 0.
>
> How about something like:
>
> if (lost)
> pr_warn("printk: %s suppressed message count: %d\n",
> state->facility ? : "ratelimit", lost);
>
> > > - missed++;
> > > + state->missed++;
> > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(_lock, flags);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > @@ -1280,8 +1290,18 @@ int printk_ratelimit_burst = 10;
> > >
> > > int printk_ratelimit(void)
> > > {
> > > + static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
> > > + .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
> > > + .last_jiffies = 0,
> > > + .missed= 0,
> > > + .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
> > > + .limit_burst = 10,
> > > + .facility = 0
> > > + };
> > > +
>
> .facility = NULL
How about this?
Signed-off-by: Steve Hawkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h
linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h
--- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0
-0600
+++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h
2008-02-21 11:20:41.751197312 -0600
@@ -196,8 +196,19 @@ static inline int log_buf_copy(char *des
unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long);
+struct printk_ratelimit_state
+{
+ unsigned long toks;
+ unsigned long last_jiffies;
+ int missed;
+ int limit_jiffies;
+ int limit_burst;
+ char const *facility;
+};
+
extern int printk_ratelimit(void);
-extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int
ratelimit_burst);
+extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int
ratelimit_burst,
+ struct printk_ratelimit_state *state);
extern bool printk_timed_ratelimit(unsigned long *caller_jiffies,
unsigned int interval_msec);
diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/kernel/printk.c
linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/kernel/printk.c
--- linux-2.6.24/kernel/printk.c2008-01-24 16:58:37.0
-0600
+++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-21
11:22:27.442319625 -0600
@@ -1238,35 +1238,41 @@ void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct
/*
* printk rate limiting, lifted from the networking subsystem.
*
- * This enforces a rate limit: not more than one kernel message
- * every printk_ratelimit_jiffies to make a denial-of-service
- * attack impossible.
+ * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks:
+ * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies.
*/
-int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst)
+int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
+ int ratelimit_burst,
+ struct printk_ratelimit_state *state)
{
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ratelimit_lock);
- static unsigned long toks = 10 * 5 * HZ;
- static unsigned long last_msg;
- static int missed;
unsigned long flags;
unsigned long now = jiffies;
spin_lock_irqsave(_lock, flags);
- toks += now - last_msg;
- last_msg = now;
- if (toks > (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
- toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
- if (toks >= ratelimit_jiffies) {
- int lost = missed;
-
- missed = 0;
- toks -= ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state->toks += now - state->last_jiffies;
+ /* Reset limiting if tunables changed */
+ if ((state->limit_jiffies != ratelimit_jiffies) ||
+ (state->limit_burst != ratelimit_burst)) {
+ state->toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state->limit_jiffies = ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state->limit_burst = ratelimit_burst;
+ }
+ state->last_jiffies = now;
+ if (state->toks > (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
+ state->toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
+ if (state->toks >= ratelimit_jiffies) {
+ int lost = state->missed;
+ state->missed = 0;
+ state->toks -= ratelimit_jiffies;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(_lock, flags);
- if (lost)
- printk(KERN_WARNING "printk: %d messages
suppressed.\n", lost);
+ if (lost) {
+ pr_warning("%s ratelimit suppressed message
count: %d\n",
+ state->facility, lost);
+ }
return 1;
}
- missed++;
+
RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:32 -0800, David Miller wrote:
+ if (lost) {
+ printk(KERN_WARNING
+printk: %d %s%smessage%s suppressed.\n,
+lost,
+(state-facility == 0 ? :
state-facility),
+(state-facility == 0 ? : ),
+(lost 1 ? s : ));
+ }
return 1;
}
This compares a pointer to 0.
How about something like:
if (lost)
pr_warn(printk: %s suppressed message count: %d\n,
state-facility ? : ratelimit, lost);
- missed++;
+ state-missed++;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(ratelimit_lock, flags);
return 0;
}
@@ -1280,8 +1290,18 @@ int printk_ratelimit_burst = 10;
int printk_ratelimit(void)
{
+ static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
+ .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
+ .last_jiffies = 0,
+ .missed= 0,
+ .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
+ .limit_burst = 10,
+ .facility = 0
+ };
+
.facility = NULL
How about this?
Signed-off-by: Steve Hawkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h
linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h
--- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0
-0600
+++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h
2008-02-21 11:20:41.751197312 -0600
@@ -196,8 +196,19 @@ static inline int log_buf_copy(char *des
unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long);
+struct printk_ratelimit_state
+{
+ unsigned long toks;
+ unsigned long last_jiffies;
+ int missed;
+ int limit_jiffies;
+ int limit_burst;
+ char const *facility;
+};
+
extern int printk_ratelimit(void);
-extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int
ratelimit_burst);
+extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int
ratelimit_burst,
+ struct printk_ratelimit_state *state);
extern bool printk_timed_ratelimit(unsigned long *caller_jiffies,
unsigned int interval_msec);
diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/kernel/printk.c
linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/kernel/printk.c
--- linux-2.6.24/kernel/printk.c2008-01-24 16:58:37.0
-0600
+++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-21
11:22:27.442319625 -0600
@@ -1238,35 +1238,41 @@ void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct
/*
* printk rate limiting, lifted from the networking subsystem.
*
- * This enforces a rate limit: not more than one kernel message
- * every printk_ratelimit_jiffies to make a denial-of-service
- * attack impossible.
+ * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks:
+ * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies.
*/
-int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst)
+int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
+ int ratelimit_burst,
+ struct printk_ratelimit_state *state)
{
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ratelimit_lock);
- static unsigned long toks = 10 * 5 * HZ;
- static unsigned long last_msg;
- static int missed;
unsigned long flags;
unsigned long now = jiffies;
spin_lock_irqsave(ratelimit_lock, flags);
- toks += now - last_msg;
- last_msg = now;
- if (toks (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
- toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
- if (toks = ratelimit_jiffies) {
- int lost = missed;
-
- missed = 0;
- toks -= ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state-toks += now - state-last_jiffies;
+ /* Reset limiting if tunables changed */
+ if ((state-limit_jiffies != ratelimit_jiffies) ||
+ (state-limit_burst != ratelimit_burst)) {
+ state-toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state-limit_jiffies = ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state-limit_burst = ratelimit_burst;
+ }
+ state-last_jiffies = now;
+ if (state-toks (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
+ state-toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
+ if (state-toks = ratelimit_jiffies) {
+ int lost = state-missed;
+ state-missed = 0;
+ state-toks -= ratelimit_jiffies;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(ratelimit_lock, flags);
- if (lost)
- printk(KERN_WARNING printk: %d messages
suppressed.\n, lost);
+ if (lost) {
+ pr_warning(%s ratelimit suppressed message
count: %d\n,
+ state-facility, lost);
+ }
return 1;
}
- missed++;
+ state-missed++;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(ratelimit_lock, flags);
return 0;
}
@@ -1280,8 +1286,17
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
From: Hawkes Steve-FSH016 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:47:11 -0600 .facility = NULL How about this? Actually, for compile time initializations, setting anything to zero is superfluous and by convention is not therefore explicitly done in the sources. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:47 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote: How about this? line wrapped, but seems better. Signed-off-by: Steve Hawkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] diff -uprN linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h --- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0 + * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks: + * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies. */ -int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst) +int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, + int ratelimit_burst, + struct printk_ratelimit_state *state) I think the value of in-place tunables is low. I'd remove that bit and use the struct printk_ratelimit_state. David Miller points out that struct initializations to 0 or NULL are not necessary. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:36:40 -0600 Steven Hawkes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Steve Hawkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit() functions each have their own
tunable parameters to control their respective rate limiting feature, but
they share common state variables, preventing independent tuning of the
parameters from working correctly. Also, changes to rate limiting tunable
parameters do not always take effect properly since state is not recomputed
when changes occur. For example, if ratelimit_burst is increased while rate
limiting is occurring, the change won't take full effect until at least
enough time between messages occurs so that the toks value reaches
ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies. This can result in messages being
suppressed when they should be allowed.
Implement independent state for printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit(), and
update state when tunables are changed.
This patch causes a large and nasty reject.
---
--- linux-2.6.24/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0
-0600
+++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/include/linux/kernel.h 2008-02-21
11:20:41.751197312 -0600
Probably because you patched 2.6.24. We're developing 2.6.25 now, and the
difference between the two is very large inded. Please raise patches
against Linus's latest tree?
There are other patches pending against printk.c (in -mm and in git-sched)
but afacit they won't collide.
@@ -196,8 +196,19 @@ static inline int log_buf_copy(char *des
unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long);
+struct printk_ratelimit_state
+{
Please do
struct printk_ratelimit_state {
+ unsigned long toks;
+ unsigned long last_jiffies;
+ int missed;
+ int limit_jiffies;
+ int limit_burst;
+ char const *facility;
+};
I find that the best-value comments one can add to kernel code are to the
members of structures. If the reader understands what all the fields do, the
code becomes simple to follow.
--- linux-2.6.24/net/core/utils.c 2008-01-24 16:58:37.0 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.24-printk_ratelimit/net/core/utils.c2008-02-21
11:03:44.644337698 -0600
@@ -41,7 +41,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(net_msg_warn);
*/
int net_ratelimit(void)
{
- return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst);
+ static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
+ .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
+ .last_jiffies = 0,
+ .missed= 0,
+ .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
+ .limit_burst = 10,
+ .facility = net
+ };
+
+ return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst, limit_state);
I don't get it. There's one instance of limit_state, kernel-wide, and
__printk_ratelimit() modifies it. What prevents one CPU's activities from
interfering with a second CPU's activities?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 17:49 -0600, Hawkes Steve-FSH016 wrote: Are you saying the few lines of code to handle changes to the tunables aren't worth keeping? Yes. I think the tunables, if needed at all, should be set by modifying the struct and the call might as well be: bool __printk_ratelimit(struct printk_ratelimit_state *state) Another quibble is not directed to your change because it's preexisting but tok isn't a good name and may not even need to be in the structure. It does save a multiply though. I think that anything that attempts a printk is slow path so it doesn't matter much though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:32 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > + if (lost) {
> > + printk(KERN_WARNING
> > + "printk: %d %s%smessage%s suppressed.\n",
> > + lost,
> > + (state->facility == 0 ? "" :
> > state->facility),
> > + (state->facility == 0 ? "" : " "),
> > + (lost > 1 ? "s" : ""));
> > + }
> > return 1;
> > }
This compares a pointer to 0.
How about something like:
if (lost)
pr_warn("printk: %s suppressed message count: %d\n",
state->facility ? : "ratelimit", lost);
> > - missed++;
> > + state->missed++;
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(_lock, flags);
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -1280,8 +1290,18 @@ int printk_ratelimit_burst = 10;
> >
> > int printk_ratelimit(void)
> > {
> > + static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
> > + .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
> > + .last_jiffies = 0,
> > + .missed= 0,
> > + .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
> > + .limit_burst = 10,
> > + .facility = 0
> > + };
> > +
.facility = NULL
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
From: "Hawkes Steve-FSH016" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:51 -0600
[ netdev CC:'d ]
> The printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit() functions are coupled and
> interfere with each other. Each has their own tunable parameters to
> control their respective rate limiting feature, but they share common
> state variables, causing the rate limiting to behave in an unexpected
> fashion when the tunables for each are set to different values.
>
> Also, changes to rate limiting tunable parameters do not always take
> effect
> properly since state is not recomputed when changes occur. For example,
> if
> the ratelimit_burst tunable value is increased while rate limiting
> is occurring, the change doesn't take full effect until at least enough
> time between messages occurs so that the toks value reaches
> ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies. This can result in messages being
> suppressed when they should be allowed.
This looks fine to me, please provide a proper "Signed-off-by: " as
described in linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Thanks.
> diff -Naup OLD/include/linux/kernel.h NEW/include/linux/kernel.h
> --- OLD/include/linux/kernel.h2008-02-19 10:02:07.461496000 -0600
> +++ NEW/include/linux/kernel.h2008-02-19 10:45:32.858306000 -0600
> @@ -196,8 +196,20 @@ static inline int log_buf_copy(char *des
>
> unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long);
>
> +struct printk_ratelimit_state
> +{
> + unsigned long toks;
> + unsigned long last_jiffies;
> + int missed;
> + int limit_jiffies;
> + int limit_burst;
> + char const *facility;
> +};
> +
> +extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
> + int ratelimit_burst,
> + struct printk_ratelimit_state *state);
> extern int printk_ratelimit(void);
> -extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int
> ratelimit_burst);
> extern bool printk_timed_ratelimit(unsigned long *caller_jiffies,
> unsigned int interval_msec);
>
> diff -Naup OLD/net/core/utils.c NEW/net/core/utils.c
> --- OLD/net/core/utils.c 2008-02-19 10:01:26.44237 -0600
> +++ NEW/net/core/utils.c 2008-02-19 10:46:45.026731000 -0600
> @@ -41,7 +41,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(net_msg_warn);
> */
> int net_ratelimit(void)
> {
> - return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst);
> + static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
> + .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
> + .last_jiffies = 0,
> + .missed= 0,
> + .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
> + .limit_burst = 10,
> + .facility = "net"
> + };
> +
> + return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost,
> + net_msg_burst,
> + _state);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(net_ratelimit);
>
> diff -Naup OLD/kernel/printk.c NEW/kernel/print.c
> --- OLD/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-19 10:00:47.359068000 -0600
> +++ NEW/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-19 10:46:30.748743000 -0600
> @@ -1236,37 +1236,47 @@ void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct
> }
>
> /*
> - * printk rate limiting, lifted from the networking subsystem.
> + * printk rate limiting.
> *
> - * This enforces a rate limit: not more than one kernel message
> - * every printk_ratelimit_jiffies to make a denial-of-service
> - * attack impossible.
> + * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks:
> + * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies.
> */
> -int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst)
> +int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
> +int ratelimit_burst,
> +struct printk_ratelimit_state *state)
> {
> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ratelimit_lock);
> - static unsigned long toks = 10 * 5 * HZ;
> - static unsigned long last_msg;
> - static int missed;
> unsigned long flags;
> unsigned long now = jiffies;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(_lock, flags);
> - toks += now - last_msg;
> - last_msg = now;
> - if (toks > (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
> - toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
> - if (toks >= ratelimit_jiffies) {
> - int lost = missed;
> -
> - missed = 0;
> - toks -= ratelimit_jiffies;
> + state->toks += now - state->last_jiffies;
> + /* Reset limiting if tunables changed */
> + if ((state->limit_jiffies != ratelimit_jiffies) ||
> + (state->limit_burst != ratelimit_burst)) {
> + state->toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
> + state->limit_jiffies = ratelimit_jiffies;
> + state->limit_burst = ratelimit_burst;
> + }
> + state->last_jiffies = now;
> + if (state->toks > (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
> + state->toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
> + if (state->toks >= ratelimit_jiffies)
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
From: Hawkes Steve-FSH016 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:30:51 -0600
[ netdev CC:'d ]
The printk_ratelimit() and net_ratelimit() functions are coupled and
interfere with each other. Each has their own tunable parameters to
control their respective rate limiting feature, but they share common
state variables, causing the rate limiting to behave in an unexpected
fashion when the tunables for each are set to different values.
Also, changes to rate limiting tunable parameters do not always take
effect
properly since state is not recomputed when changes occur. For example,
if
the ratelimit_burst tunable value is increased while rate limiting
is occurring, the change doesn't take full effect until at least enough
time between messages occurs so that the toks value reaches
ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies. This can result in messages being
suppressed when they should be allowed.
This looks fine to me, please provide a proper Signed-off-by: as
described in linux/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Thanks.
diff -Naup OLD/include/linux/kernel.h NEW/include/linux/kernel.h
--- OLD/include/linux/kernel.h2008-02-19 10:02:07.461496000 -0600
+++ NEW/include/linux/kernel.h2008-02-19 10:45:32.858306000 -0600
@@ -196,8 +196,20 @@ static inline int log_buf_copy(char *des
unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long);
+struct printk_ratelimit_state
+{
+ unsigned long toks;
+ unsigned long last_jiffies;
+ int missed;
+ int limit_jiffies;
+ int limit_burst;
+ char const *facility;
+};
+
+extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
+ int ratelimit_burst,
+ struct printk_ratelimit_state *state);
extern int printk_ratelimit(void);
-extern int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int
ratelimit_burst);
extern bool printk_timed_ratelimit(unsigned long *caller_jiffies,
unsigned int interval_msec);
diff -Naup OLD/net/core/utils.c NEW/net/core/utils.c
--- OLD/net/core/utils.c 2008-02-19 10:01:26.44237 -0600
+++ NEW/net/core/utils.c 2008-02-19 10:46:45.026731000 -0600
@@ -41,7 +41,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(net_msg_warn);
*/
int net_ratelimit(void)
{
- return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost, net_msg_burst);
+ static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
+ .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
+ .last_jiffies = 0,
+ .missed= 0,
+ .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
+ .limit_burst = 10,
+ .facility = net
+ };
+
+ return __printk_ratelimit(net_msg_cost,
+ net_msg_burst,
+ limit_state);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(net_ratelimit);
diff -Naup OLD/kernel/printk.c NEW/kernel/print.c
--- OLD/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-19 10:00:47.359068000 -0600
+++ NEW/kernel/printk.c 2008-02-19 10:46:30.748743000 -0600
@@ -1236,37 +1236,47 @@ void tty_write_message(struct tty_struct
}
/*
- * printk rate limiting, lifted from the networking subsystem.
+ * printk rate limiting.
*
- * This enforces a rate limit: not more than one kernel message
- * every printk_ratelimit_jiffies to make a denial-of-service
- * attack impossible.
+ * This enforces a rate limit to mitigate denial-of-service attacks:
+ * not more than ratelimit_burst messages every ratelimit_jiffies.
*/
-int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies, int ratelimit_burst)
+int __printk_ratelimit(int ratelimit_jiffies,
+int ratelimit_burst,
+struct printk_ratelimit_state *state)
{
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ratelimit_lock);
- static unsigned long toks = 10 * 5 * HZ;
- static unsigned long last_msg;
- static int missed;
unsigned long flags;
unsigned long now = jiffies;
spin_lock_irqsave(ratelimit_lock, flags);
- toks += now - last_msg;
- last_msg = now;
- if (toks (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
- toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
- if (toks = ratelimit_jiffies) {
- int lost = missed;
-
- missed = 0;
- toks -= ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state-toks += now - state-last_jiffies;
+ /* Reset limiting if tunables changed */
+ if ((state-limit_jiffies != ratelimit_jiffies) ||
+ (state-limit_burst != ratelimit_burst)) {
+ state-toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state-limit_jiffies = ratelimit_jiffies;
+ state-limit_burst = ratelimit_burst;
+ }
+ state-last_jiffies = now;
+ if (state-toks (ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies))
+ state-toks = ratelimit_burst * ratelimit_jiffies;
+ if (state-toks = ratelimit_jiffies) {
+ int lost = state-missed;
+ state-missed = 0;
+ state-toks -= ratelimit_jiffies;
Re: printk_ratelimit and net_ratelimit conflict and tunable behavior
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 22:32 -0800, David Miller wrote:
+ if (lost) {
+ printk(KERN_WARNING
+ printk: %d %s%smessage%s suppressed.\n,
+ lost,
+ (state-facility == 0 ? :
state-facility),
+ (state-facility == 0 ? : ),
+ (lost 1 ? s : ));
+ }
return 1;
}
This compares a pointer to 0.
How about something like:
if (lost)
pr_warn(printk: %s suppressed message count: %d\n,
state-facility ? : ratelimit, lost);
- missed++;
+ state-missed++;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(ratelimit_lock, flags);
return 0;
}
@@ -1280,8 +1290,18 @@ int printk_ratelimit_burst = 10;
int printk_ratelimit(void)
{
+ static struct printk_ratelimit_state limit_state = {
+ .toks = 10 * 5 * HZ,
+ .last_jiffies = 0,
+ .missed= 0,
+ .limit_jiffies = 5 * HZ,
+ .limit_burst = 10,
+ .facility = 0
+ };
+
.facility = NULL
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
