RE: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-05-23 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
> -Original Message- > From: Willem de Bruijn [mailto:willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 9:37 AM > To: Jon Rosen (jrosen) > Cc: David S. Miller ; Willem de Bruijn > ; Eric Dumazet > ; Kees Cook ; David Windsor > ; Rosen, &

RE: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-05-23 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
> > For the ring, there is no requirement to allocate exactly the amount > > specified by the user request. Safer than relying on shared memory > > and simpler than the extra allocation in this patch would be to allocate > > extra shadow memory at the end of the ring (and not mmap that). > > > > Th

RE: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-05-23 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
> >>> I think the bigger issues as you've pointed out are the cost of > >>> the additional spin lock and should the additional state be > >>> stored in-band (fewer cache lines) or out-of band (less risk of > >>> breaking due to unpredictable application behavior). > >> > >> We don't need the spinlo

RE: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-05-22 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
On Monday, May 21, 2018 2:17 PM, Jon Rosen (jrosen) wrote: > On Monday, May 21, 2018 1:07 PM, Willem de Bruijn > wrote: >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Jon Rosen (jrosen) wrote: ...snip... >> >> A setsockopt for userspace to signal a stricter interpretation of &

RE: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-05-21 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
On Monday, May 21, 2018 1:07 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 8:57 AM, Jon Rosen (jrosen) wrote: >> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 7:22 PM, Willem de Bruijn >> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Willem de Bruijn >>> wrote: >>>&g

RE: [PATCH v2] packet: track ring entry use using a shadow ring to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-05-21 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
On Sunday, May 20, 2018 7:22 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 6:51 PM, Willem de Bruijn > wrote: >> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Jon Rosen wrote: >>> Fix PACKET_RX_RING bug for versions TPACKET_V1 and TPACKET_V2 which >>> casues the ring to get corrupted by allowing mult

RE: [RFC PATCH] packet: mark ring entry as in-use inside spin_lock to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-05-19 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
Forward link to a new proposed patch at: https://www.mail-archive.com/netdev@vger.kernel.org/msg236629.html

RE: [RFC PATCH] packet: mark ring entry as in-use inside spin_lock to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-04-04 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
> >> >One issue with the above proposed change to use TP_STATUS_IN_PROGRESS > >> >is that the documentation of the tp_status field is somewhat > >> >inconsistent. In some places it's described as TP_STATUS_KERNEL(0) > >> >meaning the entry is owned by the kernel and !TP_STATUS_KERN

RE: [RFC PATCH] packet: mark ring entry as in-use inside spin_lock to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-04-04 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
On Wednesday, April 04, 2018 9:49 AM, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:55 PM, Jon Rosen wrote: > > Fix PACKET_RX_RING bug for versions TPACKET_V1 and TPACKET_V2 which > > casues the ring to get corrupted by allowing multiple kernel threads > > to claim ownership of the same

RE: [RFC PATCH] packet: mark ring entry as in-use inside spin_lock to prevent RX ring overrun

2018-04-04 Thread Jon Rosen (jrosen)
> > diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c > > index e0f3f4a..264d7b2 100644 > > --- a/net/packet/af_packet.c > > +++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c > > @@ -2287,6 +2287,15 @@ static int tpacket_rcv(struct sk_buff *skb, struct > > net_device *dev, > > if (po->stats.st