netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] virtio-net: Add SCTP checksum offload support

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, 20 Apr 2018 21:32:24 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>,
        Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jasowang@...hat.com,
        nhorman@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] virtio-net: Add SCTP checksum offload
 support

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 02:22:19PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:06:46PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 04:35:18PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > > On 04/02/2018 10:47 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 02, 2018 at 09:40:01AM -0400, Vladislav Yasevich wrote:
> > > >> Now that we have SCTP offload capabilities in the kernel, we can add
> > > >> them to virtio as well.  First step is SCTP checksum.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >> As for GSO, the way sctp GSO is currently implemented buys us nothing
> > > >> in added support to virtio.  To add true GSO, would require a lot of
> > > >> re-work inside of SCTP and would require extensions to the virtio
> > > >> net header to carry extra sctp data.
> > > >
> > > > Can you please elaborate more on this? Is this because SCTP GSO relies
> > > > on the gso skb format for knowing how to segment it instead of having
> > > > a list of sizes?
> > > >
> > >
> > > it's mainly because all the true segmentation, placing data into chunks,
> > > has already happened.  All that GSO does is allow for higher bundling
> > > rate between VMs. If that is all SCTP GSO ever going to do, that fine,
> > > but the goal is to do real GSO eventually and potentially reduce the
> > > amount of memory copying we are doing.
> > > If we do that, any current attempt at GSO in virtio would have to be
> > > depricated and we'd need GSO2 or something like that.
> >
> > Batching helps virtualization *a lot* though.
> 
> Yep. The results posted by Xin in the other email give good insights
> on it.
> 
> > Are there actual plans for GSO2? Is it just for SCTP?
> 
> No plans. In this context, at least, yes, just for SCTP.
> 
> It was a supposition in case we start doing a different GSO for SCTP,
> one more like what we have for TCP.
> 
> Currently, as the SCTP GSO code doesn't leave the system, we can
> update it if we want. But by the moment we add support for it in
> virtio, we will have to be backwards compatible if we end up doing
> SCTP GSO differently.

At least for TX you can always just disable the optimization. Won't be
worse than what is there now. RX is trickier - but that's GRO
not GSO.

> But again, I don't think such approach for SCTP GSO would be neither
> feasible or worth. The complexity for it, to work across stream
> schedules and late TSN allocation, would do more harm then good IMO.
> 
> >
> > >
> > > This is why, after doing the GSO support, I decided not to include it.
> > >
> > > -vlad
> > > >   Marcelo
> > > >