From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] tcp: Limit number of segments generated by GSO per skb
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 20:35:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1343676952.2667.26.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1343669507.21269.33.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 19:31 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 18:16 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > A peer (or local user) may cause TCP to use a nominal MSS of as little
> > as 88 (actual MSS of 76 with timestamps). Given that we have a
> > sufficiently prodigious local sender and the peer ACKs quickly enough,
> > it is nevertheless possible to grow the window for such a connection
> > to the point that we will try to send just under 64K at once. This
> > results in a single skb that expands to 861 segments.
> >
> > In some drivers with TSO support, such an skb will require hundreds of
> > DMA descriptors; a substantial fraction of a TX ring or even more than
> > a full ring. The TX queue selected for the skb may stall and trigger
> > the TX watchdog repeatedly (since the problem skb will be retried
> > after the TX reset). This particularly affects sfc, for which the
> > issue is designated as CVE-2012-3412. However it may be that some
> > hardware or firmware also fails to handle such an extreme TSO request
> > correctly.
> >
> > Therefore, limit the number of segments per skb to 100. This should
> > make no difference to behaviour unless the actual MSS is less than
> > about 700.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
> > ---
>
>
> Hmm, isnt GRO path also vulnerable ?
You mean, for forwarding? If page fragments are used, the number of
segments is limited to MAX_SKB_FRAGS < 100. But if skbs are aggregated
and build_skb() is not used (e.g. due to jumbo MTU) it appears we would
need an explicit limit. Something like this:
---
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Subject: [PATCH net] tcp: Limit number of segments merged by GRO
In the case where GRO aggregates skbs that cannot be converted to
page-fragments, there is currently no limit to the number of
segments that may be merged and subsequently re-segmented by GSO.
Apply the same limit as was introduced for locally-generated GSO skbs
in 'tcp: Limit number of segments generated by GSO per skb'.
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
---
net/ipv4/tcp.c | 3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index 51d8daf..a052d07 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -3144,7 +3144,8 @@ out_check_final:
TCP_FLAG_RST | TCP_FLAG_SYN |
TCP_FLAG_FIN));
- if (p && (!NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->same_flow || flush))
+ if (p && (!NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->same_flow || flush ||
+ NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->count == TCP_MAX_GSO_SEGS))
pp = head;
out:
---
> An alternative would be to drop such frames in the ndo_start_xmit(), and
> cap sk->sk_gso_max_size (since skb are no longer orphaned...)
I have implemented that workaround for the out-of-tree version of sfc.
For the in-tree driver, I thought it would be better to limit the number
of segments at source, which will avoid penalising any cases where the
window can grow so much larger than MSS.
> Or you could introduce a new wk->sk_gso_max_segments, that your sfc
> driver sets to whatever limit ?
Yes, that's another option.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-30 19:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-30 17:14 [PATCH net 0/2] Prevent extreme TSO parameters from stalling TX queues Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 17:16 ` [PATCH net 1/2] tcp: Limit number of segments generated by GSO per skb Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 17:23 ` Ben Greear
2012-07-30 19:41 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 21:00 ` Ben Greear
2012-07-30 17:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-07-30 19:35 ` Ben Hutchings [this message]
2012-07-30 19:56 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 21:46 ` David Miller
2012-07-30 22:20 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 22:50 ` Stephen Hemminger
2012-07-30 23:07 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-07-30 17:17 ` [PATCH net 2/2] sfc: Correct the minimum TX queue size Ben Hutchings
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1343676952.2667.26.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com \
--to=bhutchings@solarflare.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-net-drivers@solarflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox