netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] tun: vringfd receive support.

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: <47FE4839.6020904@qualcomm.com>
Date:	Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:02:49 -0700
From:	Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To:	dor.laor@...ranet.com
CC:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] tun: vringfd receive support.

Dor Laor wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 12:49 -0700, Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> This patch modifies tun to allow a vringfd to specify the receive
>>> buffer.  Because we can't copy to userspace in bh context, we queue
>>> like normal then use the "pull" hook to actually do the copy.
>>>
>>> More thought needs to be put into the possible races with ring
>>> registration and a simultaneous close, for example (see FIXME).
>>>
>>> We use struct virtio_net_hdr prepended to packets in the ring to allow
>>> userspace to receive GSO packets in future (at the moment, the tun
>>> driver doesn't tell the stack it can handle them, so these cases are
>>> never taken).
>> In general the code looks good. The only thing I could not convince myself in
>> is whether having generic ring buffer makes sense or not.
>> At least the TUN driver would be more efficient if it had its own simple ring
>>  implementation. Less indirection, fewer callbacks, fewer if()s, etc. TUN
>> already has the file descriptor and having two additional fds for rx and tx
>> ring is a waste (think of a VPN server that has to have a bunch of TUN fds).
>> Also as I mentioned before Jamal and I wanted to expose some of the SKB fields
>> through TUN device. With the rx/tx rings the natural way of doing that would
>> be the ring descriptor itself. It can of course be done the same way we copy
>> proto info (PI) and GSO stuff before the packet but that means more
>> copy_to_user() calls and yet more checks.
>>
>> So. What am I missing ? Why do we need generic ring for the TUN ? I looked at
>> the lguest code a bit and it seems that we need a bunch of network specific
>> code anyway. The cool thing is that you can now mmap the rings into the guest
>>  directly but the same thing can be done with TUN specific rings.
>>
> 
> The idea was to use the same virtio ring that the guests use.
> The thing with TUN specific ring is that the guests are the one
> allocating the rings within their memory space and the opposite makes
> life very complex.

We can do the same thing with TUN rings. I mean have them allocated in the 
guest space. With that we'd still have all of the advantages that I listed 
above. ie We'd have ring descriptors that carry packet info, less indirection, 
etc.

Max


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html