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:   Tue, 24 Jan 2017 19:48:51 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jasowang@...hat.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_net: fix PAGE_SIZE > 64k

On 17-01-24 01:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 04:10:46PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> This works in the regimen that XDP packets always live in exactly one
>> page.  That will be needed to mmap the RX ring into userspace, and it
>> helps make adjust_header trivial as well.

I still don't see why this is a hard requirement for mmap let me post
some patches later tonight to show how we do this with af_packet.

> 
> I think the point was to avoid resets across xdp attach/detach.  If we
> are doing resets now, we could do whatever buffering we want. We could
> also just disable mergeable buffers for that matter.
> 
>> MTU 1500, PAGESIZE >= 4096, so a headroom of 256 is no problem, and
>> we still have enough tailroom for skb_shared_info should we wrap
>> the buffer into a real SKB and push it into the stack.
>>
>> If you are trying to do buffering differently for virtio_net, well...
>> that's a self inflicted wound as far as I can tell.
> 
> Right but I was wondering about the fact that this makes XDP_PASS
> much slower than processing skbs without XDP, as truesize is huge
> so we'll quickly run out of rmem space.
> 
> When XDP is used to fight DOS attacks, why isn't this a concern?
> 

It is a concern on my side. I want XDP and Linux stack to work
reasonably well together.

.John

Powered by blists - more mailing lists