linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 00/12] io

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+FuTSf1dk-ZCN_=oFcYo31XdkLLAaHJHHNfHwJKe01CVq3X+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Dec 2021 19:32:21 -0500
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
Cc:     io-uring@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] io_uring zerocopy send

> >> # discussion / questions
> >>
> >> I haven't got a grasp on many aspects of the net stack yet, so would
> >> appreciate feedback in general and there are a couple of questions
> >> thoughts.
> >>
> >> 1) What are initialisation rules for adding a new field into
> >> struct mshdr? E.g. many users (mainly LLD) hand code initialisation not
> >> filling all the fields.
> >>
> >> 2) I don't like too much ubuf_info propagation from udp_sendmsg() into
> >> __ip_append_data() (see 3/12). Ideas how to do it better?
> >
> > Agreed that both of these are less than ideal.
> >
> > I can't comment too much on the io_uring aspect of the patch series.
> > But msg_zerocopy is probably used in a small fraction of traffic (even
> > if a high fraction for users who care about its benefits). We have to
> > try to minimize the cost incurred on the general hot path.
>
> One thing, I can hide the initial ubuf check in the beginning of
> __ip_append_data() under a common
>
> if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY)) {}
>
> But as SOCK_ZEROCOPY is more of a design problem workaround,
> tbh not sure I like from the API perspective. Thoughts?

Agreed. io_uring does not have the legacy concerns that msg_zerocopy
had to resolve.

It is always possible to hide runtime overhead behind a static_branch,
if nothing else.

Or perhaps do pass the flag and use that:

  - if (flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY && length && sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY)) {
  + if (flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY && length) {
  +         if (uarg) {

  etc.


> I hope
> I can also shuffle some of the stuff in 5/12 out of the
> hot path, need to dig a bit deeper.
>
> > I was going to suggest using the standard msg_zerocopy ubuf_info
> > alloc/free mechanism. But you explicitly mention seeing omalloc/ofree
> > in the cycle profile.
> >
> > It might still be possible to somehow signal to msg_zerocopy_alloc
> > that this is being called from within an io_uring request, and
> > therefore should use a pre-existing uarg with different
> > uarg->callback. If nothing else, some info can be passed as a cmsg.
> > But perhaps there is a more direct pointer path to follow from struct
> > sk, say? Here my limited knowledge of io_uring forces me to hand wave.
>
> One thing I consider important though is to be able to specify a
> ubuf per request, but not somehow registering it in a socket. It's
> more flexible from the userspace API perspective. It would also need
> constant register/unregister, and there are concerns with
> referencing/cancellations, that's where it came from in the first
> place.

What if the ubuf pool can be found from the sk, and the index in that
pool is passed as a cmsg?