On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:03 PM Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 12:23:54 -0400
> Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>
> > This is a lot more code change. Especially for stable fixes that need
> > to be backported, a smaller patch is preferable.
>
> Indeed. Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > My sugg
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 12:23:54 -0400
Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> This is a lot more code change. Especially for stable fixes that need
> to be backported, a smaller patch is preferable.
Indeed. Thanks for the feedback.
> My suggestion only tested the first frag_skb length. If a list can be
> created
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:52 AM Shmulik Ladkani
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:05:48 -0400
> Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>
> > One quick fix is to disable sg and thus revert to copying in this
> > case. Not ideal, but better than a kernel splat:
> >
> > @@ -3714,6 +3714,9 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_seg
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:05:48 -0400
Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> One quick fix is to disable sg and thus revert to copying in this
> case. Not ideal, but better than a kernel splat:
>
> @@ -3714,6 +3714,9 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment(struct sk_buff *head_skb,
> sg = !!(features & NETIF_F_SG
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 16:05:48 -0400
Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> One quick fix is to disable sg and thus revert to copying in this
> case. Not ideal, but better than a kernel splat:
>
> @@ -3714,6 +3714,9 @@ struct sk_buff *skb_segment(struct sk_buff *head_skb,
> sg = !!(features & NETIF_F_SG
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:22 AM Shmulik Ladkani
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:10:35 +0200
> Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>
> > Given first point above wrt hitting rarely, it would be good to first get a
> > better understanding for writing a reproducer. Back then Yonghong added one
> > to the BPF k
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:10:35 +0200
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Given first point above wrt hitting rarely, it would be good to first get a
> better understanding for writing a reproducer. Back then Yonghong added one
> to the BPF kernel test suite [0], so it would be desirable to extend it for
> the
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:10:35 +0200
Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> Given first point above wrt hitting rarely, it would be good to first get a
> better understanding for writing a reproducer. Back then Yonghong added one
> to the BPF kernel test suite [0], so it would be desirable to extend it for
> the
On 8/27/19 1:42 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:47:40 +0200
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/19 4:07 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
>>> - ipv4 forwarding to dummy1, where eBPF nat4-to-6 program is attached
>>> at TC Egress (calls 'bpf_skb_change_proto()'), then redirect
On 8/27/19 1:42 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
[...]
- Another thing that puzzles me is that we hit the BUG_ON rather rarely
and cannot yet reproduce synthetically. If skb_segment's handling of
skbs with a frag_list (that have gso_size mangled) is broken, I'd expect
to hit this more often...
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 19:47:40 +0200
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 8/26/19 4:07 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> > - ipv4 forwarding to dummy1, where eBPF nat4-to-6 program is attached
> > at TC Egress (calls 'bpf_skb_change_proto()'), then redirect to ingress
> > on same device.
> > NOTE: 'bp
On 8/26/19 4:07 PM, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In our production systems, running v4.19.y longterm kernels, we hit a
> BUG_ON in 'skb_segment()'. It occurs rarely and although tried, couldn't
> synthetically reproduce.
>
> In v4.19.41 it crashes at net/core/skbuff.c:3711
>
>
Hi,
In our production systems, running v4.19.y longterm kernels, we hit a
BUG_ON in 'skb_segment()'. It occurs rarely and although tried, couldn't
synthetically reproduce.
In v4.19.41 it crashes at net/core/skbuff.c:3711
while (pos < offset + len) {
if (i
13 matches
Mail list logo
