linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: switch to storing KCOV handle directly in sk

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]

Date:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:50:34 -0500
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Aleksandr Nogikh <a.nogikh@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: switch to storing KCOV handle directly in sk_buff

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:26 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 17:35, Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 3:19 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Will send v2.
> >
> > Does it make more sense to revert the patch that added the extensions
> > and the follow-on fixes and add a separate new patch instead?
>
> That doesn't work, because then we'll end up with a build-broken
> commit in between the reverts and the new version, because mac80211
> uses skb_get_kcov_handle().
>
> > If adding a new field to the skb, even if only in debug builds,
> > please check with pahole how it affects struct layout if you
> > haven't yet.
>
> Without KCOV:
>
>         /* size: 224, cachelines: 4, members: 72 */
>         /* sum members: 217, holes: 1, sum holes: 2 */
>         /* sum bitfield members: 36 bits, bit holes: 2, sum bit holes: 4 bits */
>         /* forced alignments: 2 */
>         /* last cacheline: 32 bytes */
>
> With KCOV:
>
>         /* size: 232, cachelines: 4, members: 73 */
>         /* sum members: 225, holes: 1, sum holes: 2 */
>         /* sum bitfield members: 36 bits, bit holes: 2, sum bit holes: 4 bits */
>         /* forced alignments: 2 */
>         /* last cacheline: 40 bytes */

Thanks. defconfig leaves some symbols disabled, but manually enabling
them just fills a hole, so 232 is indeed the worst case allocation.

I recall a firm edict against growing skb, but I don't know of a
hard limit at exactly 224.

There is a limit at 2048 - sizeof(struct skb_shared_data) == 1728B
when using pages for two ETH_FRAME_LEN (1514) allocations.

This would leave 1728 - 1514 == 214B if also squeezing the skb itself
in with the same allocation.

But I have no idea if this is used anywhere. Certainly have no example
ready. And as you show, the previous default already is at 224.

If no one else knows of a hard limit at 224 or below, I suppose the
next technical limit is just 256 for kmem cache purposes.

My understanding was that skb_extensions was supposed to solve this
problem of extending the skb without growing the main structure. Not
for this patch, but I wonder if we can resolve the issues exposed here
and make usable in more conditions.