linux-kernel - RE: io_uring: BPF controlled I/O

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:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 07:54:00 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Victor Stewart' <v@...etag.social>,
        Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
CC:     io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: io_uring: BPF controlled I/O

From: Victor Stewart
> Sent: 07 June 2021 19:51
...
> coincidentally i'm tossing around in my mind at the moment an idea for
> offloading
> the PING/PONG of a QUIC server/client into the kernel via eBPF.
> 
> problem being, being that QUIC is userspace run transport and that NAT-ed UDP
> mappings can't be expected to stay open longer than 30 seconds, QUIC
> applications
> bare a large cost of context switching wake-up to conduct connection lifetime
> maintenance... especially when managing a large number of mostly idle long lived
> connections. so offloading this maintenance service into the kernel
> would be a great
> efficiency boon.
> 
> the main impediment is that access to the kernel crypto libraries
> isn't currently possible
> from eBPF. that said, connection wide crypto offload into the NIC is a
> frequently mentioned
> subject in QUIC circles, so one could argue better to allocate the
> time to NIC crypto offload
> and then simply conduct this PING/PONG offload in plain text.

Hmmmm... a good example of how not to type emails.

Thought, does the UDP tx needed to keep the NAT tables active
need to be encrypted?
A single byte UDP packet would do the trick.
You just need something the remote system is designed to ignore.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)