linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 01/18] net: Copy slab data for sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE

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: <1969720.1687511219@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date:   Fri, 23 Jun 2023 10:06:59 +0100
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Menglong Dong <imagedong@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 01/18] net: Copy slab data for sendmsg(MSG_SPLICE_PAGES)

Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:

> IMHO this function uses a bit too much labels and would be more easy to
> read, e.g. moving the above chunk of code in conditional branch.

Maybe.  I was trying to put the fast path up at the top without the slow path
bits in it, but I can put the "insufficient_space" bit there.

> Even without such change, I think the above 'goto try_again;'
> introduces an unneeded conditional, as at this point we know 'fragsz <=
> fsize'.

Good point.

> > +		cache->pfmemalloc = folio_is_pfmemalloc(spare);
> > +		if (cache->folio)
> > +			goto reload;
> 
> I think there is some problem with the above.
> 
> If cache->folio is != NULL, and cache->folio was not pfmemalloc-ed
> while the spare one is, it looks like the wrong policy will be used.
> And should be even worse if folio was pfmemalloc-ed while spare is not.
> 
> I think moving 'cache->pfmemalloc' initialization...
> 
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> ... here should fix the above.

Yeah.  We might have raced with someone else or been moved to another cpu and
there might now be a folio we can allocate from.

> > +	/* Reset page count bias and offset to start of new frag */
> > +	cache->pagecnt_bias = PAGE_FRAG_CACHE_MAX_SIZE + 1;
> > +	offset = folio_size(folio);
> > +	goto try_again;
> 
> What if fragsz > PAGE_SIZE, we are consistently unable to allocate an
> high order page, but order-0, pfmemalloc-ed page allocation is
> successful? It looks like this could become an unbounded loop?

It shouldn't.  It should go:

	try_again:
		if (fragsz > offset)
			goto insufficient_space;
	insufficient_space:
		/* See if we can refurbish the current folio. */
		...
		fsize = folio_size(folio);
		if (unlikely(fragsz > fsize))
			goto frag_too_big;
	frag_too_big:
		...
		return NULL;

Though for safety's sake, it would make sense to put in a size check in the
case we fail to allocate a larger-order folio.

> >  		do {
> >  			struct page *page = pages[i++];
> >  			size_t part = min_t(size_t, PAGE_SIZE - off, len);
> > -
> > -			ret = -EIO;
> > -			if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!sendpage_ok(page)))
> > +			bool put = false;
> > +
> > +			if (PageSlab(page)) {
> 
> I'm a bit concerned from the above. If I read correctly, tcp 0-copy

Well, splice()-to-tcp will; MSG_ZEROCOPY is unaffected.

> will go through that for every page, even if the expected use-case is
> always !PageSlub(page). compound_head() could be costly if the head
> page is not hot on cache and I'm not sure if that could be the case for
> tcp 0-copy. The bottom line is that I fear a possible regression here.

I can put the PageSlab() check inside the sendpage_ok() so the page flag is
only checked once.  But PageSlab() doesn't check the headpage, only the page
it is given.  sendpage_ok() is more the problem as it also calls
page_count().  I could drop the check.

David