linux-kernel - Re:Re: Performance regression in ip_set

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: <7c8d2978.8451.18cf8384d73.Coremail.00107082@163.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2024 19:11:28 +0800 (CST)
From: "David Wang" <00107082@....com>
To: "Jozsef Kadlecsik" <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>
Cc: ale.crismani@...omattic.com, xiaolinkui@...inos.cn, 
	"Pablo Neira Ayuso" <pablo@...filter.org>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re:Re: Performance regression in ip_set_swap on 6.1.69



At 2024-01-11 16:25:46, "Jozsef Kadlecsik" <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>Could you check that the patch below fixes the performance regression? 
>Instead of waiting for the RCU grace period at swapping, call_rcu() is 
>used at destroying the set.

Got a compiler error:
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c: In function ‘ip_set_destroy_set_rcu’:
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c:1017:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘ip_set_destroy_set’; did you mean ‘ip_set_destroy_set_rcu’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
 1017 |         ip_set_destroy_set(set);
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      |         ip_set_destroy_set_rcu
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c: At top level:
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c:1183:1: warning: conflicting types for ‘ip_set_destroy_set’; have ‘void(struct ip_set *)’
 1183 | ip_set_destroy_set(struct ip_set *set)
      | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
net/netfilter/ipset/ip_set_core.c:1183:1: error: static declaration of ‘ip_set_destroy_set’ follows non-static declaration


I move the declaration of ip_set_destroy_set_rcu,  make sure it is after the declaration of ip_set_destroy_set, 
With this path, the performance degradation of ipset_swap is gone,  but my test only stress ipset_swap, not a swap/destroy sequence.
I will adjust my  code to stress a full swap/destroy/create/add sequence, and update later.


Thanks
David