linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230306115745.87401-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon,  6 Mar 2023 19:57:45 +0800
From:   Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
To:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        dsahern@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        pabeni@...hat.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, kerneljasonxing@...il.com,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 net-next] udp: introduce __sk_mem_schedule() usage

From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>

Keep the accounting schema consistent across different protocols
with __sk_mem_schedule(). Besides, it adjusts a little bit on how
to calculate forward allocated memory compared to before. After
applied this patch, we could avoid receive path scheduling extra
amount of memory.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230221110344.82818-1-kerneljasonxing@gmail.com/
Signed-off-by: Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
---
V2:
1) change the title and body message
2) use __sk_mem_schedule() instead suggested by Paolo Abeni
---
 net/ipv4/udp.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
index 9592fe3e444a..21c99087110d 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
@@ -1531,10 +1531,23 @@ static void busylock_release(spinlock_t *busy)
 		spin_unlock(busy);
 }
 
+static inline int udp_rmem_schedule(struct sock *sk, int size)
+{
+	int delta;
+
+	delta = size - sk->sk_forward_alloc;
+	if (delta > 0 && !__sk_mem_schedule(sk, delta, SK_MEM_RECV))
+		return -ENOBUFS;
+
+	sk->sk_forward_alloc -= size;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 int __udp_enqueue_schedule_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 {
 	struct sk_buff_head *list = &sk->sk_receive_queue;
-	int rmem, delta, amt, err = -ENOMEM;
+	int rmem, err = -ENOMEM;
 	spinlock_t *busy = NULL;
 	int size;
 
@@ -1567,20 +1580,12 @@ int __udp_enqueue_schedule_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
 		goto uncharge_drop;
 
 	spin_lock(&list->lock);
-	if (size >= sk->sk_forward_alloc) {
-		amt = sk_mem_pages(size);
-		delta = amt << PAGE_SHIFT;
-		if (!__sk_mem_raise_allocated(sk, delta, amt, SK_MEM_RECV)) {
-			err = -ENOBUFS;
-			spin_unlock(&list->lock);
-			goto uncharge_drop;
-		}
-
-		sk->sk_forward_alloc += delta;
+	err = udp_rmem_schedule(sk, size);
+	if (err) {
+		spin_unlock(&list->lock);
+		goto uncharge_drop;
 	}
 
-	sk->sk_forward_alloc -= size;
-
 	/* no need to setup a destructor, we will explicitly release the
 	 * forward allocated memory on dequeue
 	 */
-- 
2.37.3