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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:40:42 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        ilant@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/10] xfrm: remove flow cache

Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > Steffen, I know you have some level of trepidation about this because
> > there is obviously some performance cost immediately for removing this
> > DoS problem.
> 
> In a project I am involved in, we are running ipsec (Strongswan) on
> different mt7621-based routers. Each router is configured as an
> initiator and has around ~30 tunnels to different responders (running
> on misc. devices). Before the flow cache was removed (kernel 4.9), we
> got a combined throughput of around 70Mbit/s for all tunnels on one
> router. However, we recently switched to kernel 4.14 (4.14.48), and
> the total throughput is somewhere around 57Mbit/s (best-case). I.e., a
> drop of around 20%. Reverting the flow cache removal restores, as
> expected, performance levels to that of kernel 4.9.

Can you test attached patch?

I'd like to see how much the pcpu cache helps or if it actually hurts
in your setup.

Subject: [TEST PATCH 4.14.y] xfrm: remove pcpu policy cache

We need to re-evaluate if this still buys anything after indirect calls
got more expensive (retpolines).
When pcpu xdst exists, it has to be validated first (which needs
indirect calls).  So even if hit rate is good, it might be cheaper to
allocate a new xdst entry.

Furthermore, the current xdst cache needs to run with BH off, which
is also not needed when its removed.

Compile tested only.

Signed-off-by: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
---
 include/net/xfrm.h     |   1 -
 net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c |  10 ----
 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 138 +------------------------------------------------
 net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c  |   5 +-
 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 151 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/xfrm.h b/include/net/xfrm.h
index db99efb2d1d0..bdf185ae93db 100644
--- a/include/net/xfrm.h
+++ b/include/net/xfrm.h
@@ -323,7 +323,6 @@ int xfrm_policy_register_afinfo(const struct xfrm_policy_afinfo *afinfo, int fam
 void xfrm_policy_unregister_afinfo(const struct xfrm_policy_afinfo *afinfo);
 void km_policy_notify(struct xfrm_policy *xp, int dir,
 		      const struct km_event *c);
-void xfrm_policy_cache_flush(void);
 void km_state_notify(struct xfrm_state *x, const struct km_event *c);
 
 struct xfrm_tmpl;
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
index 30e5746085b8..4e458fd9236a 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_device.c
@@ -153,12 +153,6 @@ static int xfrm_dev_register(struct net_device *dev)
 	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
-static int xfrm_dev_unregister(struct net_device *dev)
-{
-	xfrm_policy_cache_flush();
-	return NOTIFY_DONE;
-}
-
 static int xfrm_dev_feat_change(struct net_device *dev)
 {
 	if ((dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP) && !dev->xfrmdev_ops)
@@ -178,7 +172,6 @@ static int xfrm_dev_down(struct net_device *dev)
 	if (dev->features & NETIF_F_HW_ESP)
 		xfrm_dev_state_flush(dev_net(dev), dev, true);
 
-	xfrm_policy_cache_flush();
 	return NOTIFY_DONE;
 }
 
@@ -190,9 +183,6 @@ static int xfrm_dev_event(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long event, void
 	case NETDEV_REGISTER:
 		return xfrm_dev_register(dev);
 
-	case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
-		return xfrm_dev_unregister(dev);
-
 	case NETDEV_FEAT_CHANGE:
 		return xfrm_dev_feat_change(dev);
 
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
index 9c57d6a5816c..cdfb60a9820b 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
@@ -45,8 +45,6 @@ struct xfrm_flo {
 	u8 flags;
 };
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct xfrm_dst *, xfrm_last_dst);
-static struct work_struct *xfrm_pcpu_work __read_mostly;
 static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(xfrm_policy_afinfo_lock);
 static struct xfrm_policy_afinfo const __rcu *xfrm_policy_afinfo[AF_INET6 + 1]
 						__read_mostly;
@@ -1715,108 +1713,6 @@ static int xfrm_expand_policies(const struct flowi *fl, u16 family,
 
 }
 
-static void xfrm_last_dst_update(struct xfrm_dst *xdst, struct xfrm_dst *old)
-{
-	this_cpu_write(xfrm_last_dst, xdst);
-	if (old)
-		dst_release(&old->u.dst);
-}
-
-static void __xfrm_pcpu_work_fn(void)
-{
-	struct xfrm_dst *old;
-
-	old = this_cpu_read(xfrm_last_dst);
-	if (old && !xfrm_bundle_ok(old))
-		xfrm_last_dst_update(NULL, old);
-}
-
-static void xfrm_pcpu_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
-{
-	local_bh_disable();
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	__xfrm_pcpu_work_fn();
-	rcu_read_unlock();
-	local_bh_enable();
-}
-
-void xfrm_policy_cache_flush(void)
-{
-	struct xfrm_dst *old;
-	bool found = 0;
-	int cpu;
-
-	might_sleep();
-
-	local_bh_disable();
-	rcu_read_lock();
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		old = per_cpu(xfrm_last_dst, cpu);
-		if (old && !xfrm_bundle_ok(old)) {
-			if (smp_processor_id() == cpu) {
-				__xfrm_pcpu_work_fn();
-				continue;
-			}
-			found = true;
-			break;
-		}
-	}
-
-	rcu_read_unlock();
-	local_bh_enable();
-
-	if (!found)
-		return;
-
-	get_online_cpus();
-
-	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
-		bool bundle_release;
-
-		rcu_read_lock();
-		old = per_cpu(xfrm_last_dst, cpu);
-		bundle_release = old && !xfrm_bundle_ok(old);
-		rcu_read_unlock();
-
-		if (!bundle_release)
-			continue;
-
-		if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
-			schedule_work_on(cpu, &xfrm_pcpu_work[cpu]);
-			continue;
-		}
-
-		rcu_read_lock();
-		old = per_cpu(xfrm_last_dst, cpu);
-		if (old && !xfrm_bundle_ok(old)) {
-			per_cpu(xfrm_last_dst, cpu) = NULL;
-			dst_release(&old->u.dst);
-		}
-		rcu_read_unlock();
-	}
-
-	put_online_cpus();
-}
-
-static bool xfrm_xdst_can_reuse(struct xfrm_dst *xdst,
-				struct xfrm_state * const xfrm[],
-				int num)
-{
-	const struct dst_entry *dst = &xdst->u.dst;
-	int i;
-
-	if (xdst->num_xfrms != num)
-		return false;
-
-	for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
-		if (!dst || dst->xfrm != xfrm[i])
-			return false;
-		dst = dst->child;
-	}
-
-	return xfrm_bundle_ok(xdst);
-}
-
 static struct xfrm_dst *
 xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
 			       const struct flowi *fl, u16 family,
@@ -1824,7 +1720,7 @@ xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
 {
 	struct net *net = xp_net(pols[0]);
 	struct xfrm_state *xfrm[XFRM_MAX_DEPTH];
-	struct xfrm_dst *xdst, *old;
+	struct xfrm_dst *xdst;
 	struct dst_entry *dst;
 	int err;
 
@@ -1836,21 +1732,6 @@ xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
 		return ERR_PTR(err);
 	}
 
-	xdst = this_cpu_read(xfrm_last_dst);
-	if (xdst &&
-	    xdst->u.dst.dev == dst_orig->dev &&
-	    xdst->num_pols == num_pols &&
-	    memcmp(xdst->pols, pols,
-		   sizeof(struct xfrm_policy *) * num_pols) == 0 &&
-	    xfrm_xdst_can_reuse(xdst, xfrm, err)) {
-		dst_hold(&xdst->u.dst);
-		while (err > 0)
-			xfrm_state_put(xfrm[--err]);
-		return xdst;
-	}
-
-	old = xdst;
-
 	dst = xfrm_bundle_create(pols[0], xfrm, err, fl, dst_orig);
 	if (IS_ERR(dst)) {
 		XFRM_INC_STATS(net, LINUX_MIB_XFRMOUTBUNDLEGENERROR);
@@ -1863,9 +1744,6 @@ xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(struct xfrm_policy **pols, int num_pols,
 	memcpy(xdst->pols, pols, sizeof(struct xfrm_policy *) * num_pols);
 	xdst->policy_genid = atomic_read(&pols[0]->genid);
 
-	atomic_set(&xdst->u.dst.__refcnt, 2);
-	xfrm_last_dst_update(xdst, old);
-
 	return xdst;
 }
 
@@ -2066,11 +1944,8 @@ xfrm_bundle_lookup(struct net *net, const struct flowi *fl, u16 family, u8 dir,
 	if (num_xfrms <= 0)
 		goto make_dummy_bundle;
 
-	local_bh_disable();
 	xdst = xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(pols, num_pols, fl, family,
 					      xflo->dst_orig);
-	local_bh_enable();
-
 	if (IS_ERR(xdst)) {
 		err = PTR_ERR(xdst);
 		if (err != -EAGAIN)
@@ -2157,11 +2032,9 @@ struct dst_entry *xfrm_lookup(struct net *net, struct dst_entry *dst_orig,
 				goto no_transform;
 			}
 
-			local_bh_disable();
 			xdst = xfrm_resolve_and_create_bundle(
 					pols, num_pols, fl,
 					family, dst_orig);
-			local_bh_enable();
 
 			if (IS_ERR(xdst)) {
 				xfrm_pols_put(pols, num_pols);
@@ -2982,15 +2855,6 @@ static struct pernet_operations __net_initdata xfrm_net_ops = {
 
 void __init xfrm_init(void)
 {
-	int i;
-
-	xfrm_pcpu_work = kmalloc_array(NR_CPUS, sizeof(*xfrm_pcpu_work),
-				       GFP_KERNEL);
-	BUG_ON(!xfrm_pcpu_work);
-
-	for (i = 0; i < NR_CPUS; i++)
-		INIT_WORK(&xfrm_pcpu_work[i], xfrm_pcpu_work_fn);
-
 	register_pernet_subsys(&xfrm_net_ops);
 	seqcount_init(&xfrm_policy_hash_generation);
 	xfrm_input_init();
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
index 6c4ec69e11a0..bff47fd1519b 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_state.c
@@ -735,10 +735,9 @@ int xfrm_state_flush(struct net *net, u8 proto, bool task_valid)
 	}
 out:
 	spin_unlock_bh(&net->xfrm.xfrm_state_lock);
-	if (cnt) {
+	if (cnt)
 		err = 0;
-		xfrm_policy_cache_flush();
-	}
+
 	return err;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(xfrm_state_flush);
-- 
2.16.4

> Carrying around a fairly large revert patch is not something we want,
> we are more interested in trying to fix at least some of the
> performance problems. However, we are not very experienced when it
> comes to profiling the kernel code or the xfrm-code itself. Are there
> any known areas we should take a special look at, or should we just
> read-up on different profiling tools and get started?
> 
> Also, the revert went very smooth, which always makes me a bit
> nervous. Are there any parts of the flow cache removal that should or
> would require a bit of special care when reverted?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any help.
> 
> BR,
> Kristian

-- 
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
4096R/AD5FF600  2015-09-13
Key fingerprint = 80A9 20C5 B203 E069 F586  AE9F 7091 A8D9 AD5F F600
Phone: +49 151 11132303

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ