RE: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al.

2017-02-21 Thread David Laight
From: Al Viro > Sent: 18 February 2017 00:02 ... > Actually, I've a better solution. Namely, analogue of iov_iter_advance() > for going backwards. The restriction is that you should never unroll > further than where you've initially started *or* have the iovec, etc. > array modified under you

Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al.

2017-02-20 Thread David Miller
From: Al Viro Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 00:02:14 + > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:03:15PM +, Al Viro wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:54:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote: >> > From: Al Viro >> > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 + >> >

Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al.

2017-02-19 Thread Christian Lamparter
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 12:02:14 AM CET Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:03:15PM +, Al Viro wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:54:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Al Viro > > > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 + > > > > > > > OK...

Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al.

2017-02-17 Thread Al Viro
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 12:02:14AM +, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:03:15PM +, Al Viro wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:54:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Al Viro > > > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 + > > > > > > > OK...

Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al.

2017-02-17 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:03:15PM +, Al Viro wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:54:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > > From: Al Viro > > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 + > > > > > OK... Remaining interesting question is whether it adds a noticable > > >

Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al.

2017-02-17 Thread Al Viro
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:54:20AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Al Viro > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 + > > > OK... Remaining interesting question is whether it adds a noticable > > overhead. Could somebody try it on assorted benchmarks and see if > > it

Re: [PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al.

2017-02-17 Thread David Miller
From: Al Viro Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 01:33:06 + > OK... Remaining interesting question is whether it adds a noticable > overhead. Could somebody try it on assorted benchmarks and see if > it slows the things down? The patch in question follows: That's about a 40

[PATCH][CFT] Saner error handling in skb_copy_datagram_iter() et.al. (was Re: PROBLEM: network data corruption (bisected to e5a4b0bb803b))

2017-02-13 Thread Al Viro
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:56:46PM +0100, Christian Lamparter wrote: > Ok, thank you for sticking around. As for the patch: I've tested it with > the dlbug program from (modified to > pull from a local server) and the netem corruption policy as described > in