linux-kernel - Re: [RFC net-next 1/9] skb: introduce gro

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]

Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 14:47:41 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
 Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
 Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
 Abhishek Chauhan <quic_abchauha@...cinc.com>,
 David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
 Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
 David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@...il.com>,
 Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
 Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
 Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
 Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>,
 Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next 1/9] skb: introduce gro_disabled bit

On 6/21/24 2:15 PM, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Yan Zhai wrote:
>> Software GRO is currently controlled by a single switch, i.e.
>>
>>    ethtool -K dev gro on|off
>>
>> However, this is not always desired. When GRO is enabled, even if the
>> kernel cannot GRO certain traffic, it has to run through the GRO receive
>> handlers with no benefit.
>>
>> There are also scenarios that turning off GRO is a requirement. For
>> example, our production environment has a scenario that a TC egress hook
>> may add multiple encapsulation headers to forwarded skbs for load
>> balancing and isolation purpose. The encapsulation is implemented via
>> BPF. But the problem arises then: there is no way to properly offload a
>> double-encapsulated packet, since skb only has network_header and
>> inner_network_header to track one layer of encapsulation, but not two.
>> On the other hand, not all the traffic through this device needs double
>> encapsulation. But we have to turn off GRO completely for any ingress
>> device as a result.
>>
>> Introduce a bit on skb so that GRO engine can be notified to skip GRO on
>> this skb, rather than having to be 0-or-1 for all traffic.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
>> ---
>>   include/linux/netdevice.h |  9 +++++++--
>>   include/linux/skbuff.h    | 10 ++++++++++
>>   net/Kconfig               | 10 ++++++++++
>>   net/core/gro.c            |  2 +-
>>   net/core/gro_cells.c      |  2 +-
>>   net/core/skbuff.c         |  4 ++++
>>   6 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> index c83b390191d4..2ca0870b1221 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h
>> @@ -2415,11 +2415,16 @@ struct net_device {
>>   	((dev)->devlink_port = (port));				\
>>   })
>>   
>> -static inline bool netif_elide_gro(const struct net_device *dev)
>> +static inline bool netif_elide_gro(const struct sk_buff *skb)
>>   {
>> -	if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_GRO) || dev->xdp_prog)
>> +	if (!(skb->dev->features & NETIF_F_GRO) || skb->dev->xdp_prog)
>>   		return true;
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SKB_GRO_CONTROL
>> +	return skb->gro_disabled;
>> +#else
>>   	return false;
>> +#endif
> 
> Yet more branches in the hot path.
> 
> Compile time configurability does not help, as that will be
> enabled by distros.
> 
> For a fairly niche use case. Where functionality of GRO already
> works. So just a performance for a very rare case at the cost of a
> regression in the common case. A small regression perhaps, but death
> by a thousand cuts.

Mentioning it here b/c it perhaps fits in this context, longer time ago
there was the idea mentioned to have BPF operating as GRO engine which
might also help to reduce attack surface by only having to handle packets
of interest for the concrete production use case. Perhaps here meta data
buffer could be used to pass a notification from XDP to exit early w/o
aggregation.