netdev - Re: TUN problems (regression?)

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

Date:	Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:43:54 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@...il.com>, Paul Moore <pmoore@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: TUN problems (regression?)

On 12/28/2012 08:41 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:26:56 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 11:32 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 12/21/2012 07:50 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:38:17 -0800
>>>>> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-12-20 at 18:16 -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
>>>>>>> [CC'ing netdev in case this is a known problem I just missed ...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I started doing some more testing with the multiqueue TUN changes and I ran 
>>>>>>> into a problem when running tunctl: running it once w/o arguments works as 
>>>>>>> expected, but running it a second time results in failure and a 
>>>>>>> kmem_cache_sanity_check() failure.  The problem appears to be very repeatable 
>>>>>>> on my test VM and happens independent of the LSM/SELinux fixup patches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you seen this before?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously code in tun_flow_init() is wrong...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static int tun_flow_init(struct tun_struct *tun)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>         int i;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         tun->flow_cache = kmem_cache_create("tun_flow_cache",
>>>>>>                                             sizeof(struct tun_flow_entry), 0, 0,
>>>>>>                                             NULL);
>>>>>>         if (!tun->flow_cache)
>>>>>>                 return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea why we would need a kmem_cache per tun_struct,
>>>>>> and why we even need a kmem_cache.
>>>>> Normally flow malloc/free should be good enough.
>>>>> It might make sense to use private kmem_cache if doing hlist_nulls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
>>>> Should be at least a global cache, I thought I can get some speed-up by
>>>> using kmem_cache.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>>> Was it with SLUB or SLAB ?
>>>
>>> Using generic kmalloc-64 is better than a dedicated kmem_cache of 48
>>> bytes per object, as we guarantee each object is on a single cache line.
>>>
>>>
>> Right, thanks for the explanation.
>>
> I wonder if TUN would be better if it used a array to translate
> receive hash to receive queue. This is how real hardware works with the
> indirection table, and it would allow RFS acceleration. The current flow
> cache stuff is prone to DoS attack and scaling problems with lots of
> short lived flows.

The problem of indirection table is hash collision which may even happen
when few flows existed.

For the RFS, we can open a API/ioctl for userspace to add or remove a
flow cache.

For the DoS/scaling issue, I have an idea of:
- limit the total number of flow entries in tun/tap
- only update the flow entry every N (say 20 like ixgbe) packets or the
the tcp packet has sync flag
- I'm not sure skb_get_rxhash() is lightweight enough, or change to more
lightweight one?

Any suggestions?

Thanks

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html