[PATCH net-next] stmmac: align RX buffers

[Matteo Croce]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 8:09 PM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:56:33 +0100,
> Matteo Croce <mcroce at linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 7:51 PM Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:35:45 +0100,
> > > Matteo Croce <mcroce at linux.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I think it's wrong. The original offset was 0, and to align it to the
> > > > > > boundary we need to add just NET_IP_ALIGN, which is two.
> > > > > > NET_SKB_PAD is a much bigger value, (I think 64), which is used to
> > > > > > reserve space to prepend an header, e.g. with tunnels.
> > > > >
> > > > > How about the other adjustments that Eric mentioned regarding the size
> > > > > of the buffer? Aren't they required?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I guess that if stmmac_rx_buf1_len() needed such adjustment, it would
> > > > be already broken when XDP is in use.
> > > > When you use XDP, stmmac_rx_offset() adds a pretty big headroom of 256
> > > > byte, which would easily trigger an overflow if not accounted.
> > > > Did you try attaching a simple XDP program on a stock 5.13 kernel?
> > >
> > > Yes, as mentioned in [1], to which you replied...
> > >
> > >         M.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/87wnohqty1.wl-maz@kernel.org
> > >
> >
> > Great.
> > So I doubt that the adjustment is needed.
> > Does it work with all the frame size?
>
> I have no idea. Honestly, you are the one who should be able to answer
> these questions, given that you should have worked out how the buffer
> allocations work in this particular driver.
>
> This whole "let's try another random set of values until something
> sticks" is not how things ought to be done, and doesn't fill me with
> the utmost confidence that 5.14 (which apparently may well be cut in
> *two days*) is going to have a solid stmmac driver.
>
> I re-re-request that this patch gets reverted until you figure out
> what is wrong with the initial patch.
>
> Thanks,
>

I would have done it, but I'll not have the hardware until next week at least,
otherwise I'd have tried all these tests myself.

I'm sure that NET_SKB_PAD doesn't need to be there, if just removing
it fixes the problem, consider applying it and put a Fixes tag.

-- 
per aspera ad upstream