linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next RFC 2/5] xen-netback: Change TX path from grant copy to mapping

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]

Message-ID: <5273D235.3060100@citrix.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:09:25 +0000
From:	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
To:	Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@...rix.com>,
	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Davies <Jonathan.Davies@...rix.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH net-next RFC 2/5] xen-netback: Change TX path
 from grant copy to mapping

On 30/10/13 21:10, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
> On 30/10/13 09:11, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>> +    err = alloc_xenballooned_pages(MAX_PENDING_REQS,
>>> +        vif->mmap_pages,
>>> +        false);
>>
>> Since this is a per-vif allocation, is this going to scale?
> Good question, I'll look after this.
I've talked to David Vrabel about this: if ballooning is disabled, this 
will reserve real memory, therefore for every VIF you allocate usually 
1MB memory. But if you enable ballooning, it will use pages which are 
not actually reserved, and that's fine, because we never gonna really 
use them. The only issue is that you need to set the maximum at boot 
time, and it will consume memory also because of the page table 
reservations.
The long term solution would be to just use a bunch of struct pages, 
David said the ballooning driver has something like that, but it's 
broken at the moment.

>>>           if (data_len < txp->size) {
>>>               /* Append the packet payload as a fragment. */
>>>               txp->offset += data_len;
>>>               txp->size -= data_len;
>>> -        } else {
>>> +            skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg =
>>> +                &vif-
>>>> pending_tx_info[pending_idx].callback_struct;
>>> +        } else if (!skb_shinfo(skb)->nr_frags) {
>>>               /* Schedule a response immediately. */
>>> +            skb_shinfo(skb)->destructor_arg = NULL;
>>> +            xenvif_idx_unmap(vif, pending_idx);
>>>               xenvif_idx_release(vif, pending_idx,
>>>                          XEN_NETIF_RSP_OKAY);
>>> +        } else {
>>> +            /* FIXME: first request fits linear space, I don't know
>>> +             * if any guest would do that, but I think it's possible
>>> +             */
>>
>> The Windows frontend, because it has to parse the packet headers, will
>> coalesce everything up to the payload in a single frag and it would be
>> a good idea to copy this directly into the linear area.
> I forgot to clarify this comment: the problem I wanted to handle here if
> the first request's size is PKT_PROT_LEN and there is more fragments.
> Then skb->len will be PKT_PROT_LEN as well, and the if statement falls
> through to the else branch. That might be problematic if we release the
> slot of the first request separately from the others. Or am I
> overlooking something? Does that matter to netfront anyway?
> And this problem, if it's true, applies to the previous, grant copy
> method as well.
> However, as I think, it might be better to change the condition to
> (data_len <= txp->size), rather than putting an if-else statement into
> the else branch.
I've talked to Wei, we think this is a broken guest behaviour, and 
therefore we shouldn't care if someone does such a stupid thing.

Zoli
--
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/