linux-kernel - Re: Scaling problem with a lot of AF_PACKET sockets on different interfaces

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:34:12 +0300
From:	"Vitaly V. Bursov" <vitalyb@...enet.dn.ua>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
CC:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Scaling problem with a lot of AF_PACKET sockets on different
 interfaces

07.06.2013 17:33, Daniel Borkmann пишет:
> On 06/07/2013 04:17 PM, Vitaly V. Bursov wrote:
>> 07.06.2013 16:05, Daniel Borkmann пишет:
> [...]
>>>>> Ideas are welcome :)
>>>
>>> Probably, that depends on _your scenario_ and/or BPF filter, but would it be
>>> an alternative if you have only a few packet sockets (maybe one pinned to each
>>> cpu) and cluster/load-balance them together via packet fanout? (Where you
>>> bind the socket to ifindex 0, so that you get traffic from all devs...) That
>>> would at least avoid that "hot spot", and you could post-process the interface
>>> via sockaddr_ll. But I'd agree that this will not solve the actual problem you've
>>> observed. ;-)
>>
>> I was't aware of the ifindex 0 thing, it can help, thanks! Of course, if it'll
>> work for me (applications is a custom DHCP server) it'll surely
>> increase the overhead of BPF (I don't need to tap the traffic from all
>> interfaces), there are vlans, bridges and bonds - likely the server will receive
>> same packets multiple times and replies must be sent too...
>> but it still should be faster.
>
> Well, as already said, if you use a fanout socket group, then you won't receive the
> _exact_ same packet twice. Rather, packets are balanced by different policies among
> your packet sockets in that group. What you could do is to have a (e.g.) single BPF
> filter (jitted) for all those sockets that'll let needed packets pass and you can then
> access the interface they came from via sockaddr_ll, which then is further processed
> in your fast path (or dropped depending on the iface). There's also a BPF extension
> (BPF_S_ANC_IFINDEX) that lets you load the ifindex of the skb into the BPF accumulator,
> so you could also filter early from there for a range of ifindexes (in combination to
> bind the sockets to index 0). Probably that could work.

Thanks everybody, this should help a lot.

-- 
Vitaly

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/