linux-kernel - Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] 9p/xen: increase XEN_9PFS_RING

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2005201340310.27502@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
Date:   Wed, 20 May 2020 13:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>, jgross@...e.com,
        lucho@...kov.net, ericvh@...il.com, rminnich@...dia.gov,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] 9p/xen: increase XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER

On Wed, 20 May 2020, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini wrote on Wed, May 20, 2020:
> > From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...inx.com>
> > 
> > Increase XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER to 9 for performance reason. Order 9 is the
> > max allowed by the protocol.
> > 
> > We can't assume that all backends will support order 9. The xenstore
> > property max-ring-page-order specifies the max order supported by the
> > backend. We'll use max-ring-page-order for the size of the ring.
> > 
> > This means that the size of the ring is not static
> > (XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(9)) anymore. Change XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE to take an
> > argument and base the calculation on the order chosen at setup time.
> > 
> > 
> > Finally, modify p9_xen_trans.maxsize to be divided by 4 compared to the
> > original value. We need to divide it by 2 because we have two rings
> > coming off the same order allocation: the in and out rings. This was a
> > mistake in the original code. Also divide it further by 2 because we
> > don't want a single request/reply to fill up the entire ring. There can
> > be multiple requests/replies outstanding at any given time and if we use
> > the full ring with one, we risk forcing the backend to wait for the
> > client to read back more replies before continuing, which is not
> > performant.
> 
> Sounds good to me overall. A couple of comments inline.
> Also worth noting I need to rebuild myself a test setup so might take a
> bit of time to actually run tests, but I might just trust you on this
> one for now if it builds with no new warning... Looks like it would
> probably work :p
> 
> > [...]
> > @@ -264,7 +265,7 @@ static irqreturn_t xen_9pfs_front_event_handler(int irq, void *r)
> >  
> >  static struct p9_trans_module p9_xen_trans = {
> >  	.name = "xen",
> > -	.maxsize = 1 << (XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER + XEN_PAGE_SHIFT),
> > +	.maxsize = 1 << (XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER + XEN_PAGE_SHIFT - 2),
> >  	.def = 1,
> >  	.create = p9_xen_create,
> >  	.close = p9_xen_close,
> > [...]
> > @@ -401,8 +405,10 @@ static int xen_9pfs_front_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  	max_ring_order = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->otherend,
> >  					      "max-ring-page-order", 0);
> > -	if (max_ring_order < XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER)
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > +	if (max_ring_order > XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER)
> > +		max_ring_order = XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER;
> 
> (If there are backends with very small max_ring_orders, we no longer
> error out when we encounter one, it might make sense to add a min
> define? Although to be honest 9p works with pretty small maxsizes so I
> don't see much reason to error out, and even order 0 will be one page
> worth.. I hope there is no xenbus that small though :))

Your point is valid but the size calculation (XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE) should
work correctly even with order 0:

    (1UL << ((0) + XEN_PAGE_SHIFT - 1)) = 1 << (12 - 1) = 2048

So I am thinking that the protocol should still work correctly, although
the performance might be undesirable.

FYI The smallest backend I know of has order 6.


> > +	if (p9_xen_trans.maxsize > XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(max_ring_order))
> > +		p9_xen_trans.maxsize = XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(max_ring_order);
> 
> So base maxsize initial value is 1 << (order + page_shift - 2) ; but
> this is 1 << (order + page_shift - 1) -- I agree with the logic you gave
> in commit message so would think this needs to be shifted down one more
> like the base value as well.
> What do you think?

Yes, you are right, thanks for noticing this! I meant to do that here
too but somehow forgot. This should be:

   p9_xen_trans.maxsize = XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(max_ring_order) / 2;