On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 08:41:22PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:07 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Arnd,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 05:12:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > The nft_offload_ctx structure is much too large to put on the
> > > stack:
> > >
> > > net/netfilter/nf_tables_offload.c:31:23: error: stack frame size of 1200 bytes in function 'nft_flow_rule_create' [-Werror,-Wframe-larger-than=]
> > >
> > > Use dynamic allocation here, as we do elsewhere in the same
> > > function.
> > >
> > > Fixes: c9626a2cbdb2 ("netfilter: nf_tables: add hardware offload support")
> > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Since we only really care about two members of the structure, an
> > > alternative would be a larger rewrite, but that is probably too
> > > late for v5.4.
> >
> > Thanks for this patch.
> >
> > I'm attaching a patch to reduce this structure size a bit. Do you
> > think this alternative patch is ok until this alternative rewrite
> > happens?
>
> I haven't tried it yet, but it looks like that would save 8 of the
> 48 bytes in each for each of the 24 registers (12 bytes on m68k
> or i386, which only use 4 byte alignment for nft_data), so
> this wouldn't make too much difference.
I'll take your patch as is.
> > Anyway I agree we should to get this structure away from the
> > stack, even after this is still large, so your patch (or a variant of
> > it) will be useful sooner than later I think.
>
> What I was thinking for a possible smaller fix would be to not
> pass the ctx into the expr->ops->offload callback but
> only pass the 'dep' member. Since I've never seen this code
> before, I have no idea if that would be an improvement
> in the end.
We might need this more fields of this context structure, this code is
very new, still under development, let's revisit this later.
Thanks.
