linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] remove msize limit in virtio transport

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: <Ys3j7KucZGdFkttA@codewreck.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 06:13:16 +0900
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc:     v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
        Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
        Nikolay Kichukov <nikolay@...um.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/11] remove msize limit in virtio transport

Alright; anything I didn't reply to looks good to me.

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 04:35:54PM +0200:
> OVERVIEW OF PATCHES:
> 
> * Patches 1..6 remove the msize limitation from the 'virtio' transport
>   (i.e. the 9p 'virtio' transport itself actually supports >4MB now, tested
>   successfully with an experimental QEMU version and some dirty 9p Linux
>   client hacks up to msize=128MB).

I have no problem with this except for the small nitpicks I gave, but
would be tempted to delay this part for one more cycle as it's really
independant -- what do you think?


> * Patch 7 limits msize for all transports to 4 MB for now as >4MB would need
>   more work on 9p client level (see commit log of patch 7 for details).
> 
> * Patches 8..11 tremendously reduce unnecessarily huge 9p message sizes and
>   therefore provide performance gain as well. So far, almost all 9p messages
>   simply allocated message buffers exactly msize large, even for messages
>   that actually just needed few bytes. So these patches make sense by
>   themselves, independent of this overall series, however for this series
>   even more, because the larger msize, the more this issue would have hurt
>   otherwise.

time-wise we're getting close to the merge window already (probably in 2
weeks), how confident are you in this?
I can take patches 8..11 in -next now and probably find some time to
test over next weekend, are we good?

-- 
Dominique