linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] cgroup/bpf: fast path skb BPF filtering

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: <CAKH8qBuAZoVQddMUkyhur=WyQO5b=z9eom1RAwgwraXg2WTj5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 10:24:38 -0800
From:   Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>
Cc:     Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cgroup/bpf: fast path skb BPF filtering

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 10:14 AM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 01:21:26PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > On 12/15/21 22:07, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:55 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 12/15/21 19:15, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 10:54 AM Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/15/21 18:24, sdf@...gle.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > > > I can probably do more experiments on my side once your patch is
> > > > > > > accepted. I'm mostly concerned with getsockopt(TCP_ZEROCOPY_RECEIVE).
> > > > > > > If you claim there is visible overhead for a direct call then there
> > > > > > > should be visible benefit to using CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED there as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting, sounds getsockopt might be performance sensitive to
> > > > > > someone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > FWIW, I forgot to mention that for testing tx I'm using io_uring
> > > > > > (for both zc and not) with good submission batching.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, last time I saw 2-3% as well, but it was due to kmalloc, see
> > > > > more details in 9cacf81f8161, it was pretty visible under perf.
> > > > > That's why I'm a bit skeptical of your claims of direct calls being
> > > > > somehow visible in these 2-3% (even skb pulls/pushes are not 2-3%?).
> > > >
> > > > migrate_disable/enable together were taking somewhat in-between
> > > > 1% and 1.5% in profiling, don't remember the exact number. The rest
> > > > should be from rcu_read_lock/unlock() in BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY_CG_FLAGS()
> > > > and other extra bits on the way.
> > >
> > > You probably have a preemptiple kernel and preemptible rcu which most
> > > likely explains why you see the overhead and I won't (non-preemptible
> > > kernel in our env, rcu_read_lock is essentially a nop, just a compiler
> > > barrier).
> >
> > Right. For reference tried out non-preemptible, perf shows the function
> > taking 0.8% with a NIC and 1.2% with a dummy netdev.
> >
> >
> > > > I'm skeptical I'll be able to measure inlining one function,
> > > > variability between boots/runs is usually greater and would hide it.
> > >
> > > Right, that's why I suggested to mirror what we do in set/getsockopt
> > > instead of the new extra CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED. But I'll leave it up
> > > to you, Martin and the rest.
> I also suggested to try to stay with one way for fullsock context in v2
> but it is for code readability reason.
>
> How about calling CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED() just next to cgroup_bpf_enabled()
> in BPF_CGROUP_RUN_PROG_*SOCKOPT_*() instead ?

SG!

> It is because both cgroup_bpf_enabled() and CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED()
> want to check if there is bpf to run before proceeding everything else
> and then I don't need to jump to the non-inline function itself to see
> if there is other prog array empty check.
>
> Stan, do you have concern on an extra inlined sock_cgroup_ptr()
> when there is bpf prog to run for set/getsockopt()?  I think
> it should be mostly noise from looking at
> __cgroup_bpf_run_filter_*sockopt()?

Yeah, my concern is also mostly about readability/consistency. Either
__cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty everywhere or this new
CGROUP_BPF_TYPE_ENABLED everywhere. I'm slightly leaning towards
__cgroup_bpf_prog_array_is_empty because I don't believe direct
function calls add any visible overhead and macros are ugly :-) But
either way is fine as long as it looks consistent.